The Fastest way to get Links I know of...... [Archive]

eventdomain

25th July 2010, 21:22

There's many posts about how to get links, but few on how to get them really fast.

Blogs

Get yourself a Blog, they allow you to write unlimited content, which turns into content for the engines - people may link to it and thus link back to your site.

Link swap

These are difficult to obtain on high traffic websites, but worth a stab, and you can get lucky.

Create your own Newsletter

You can create content and send it to your clients
Get new sign-ups
Use it to swap links
Charge to be included

Directories

Okay, you must be careful with these as you can get carried away submitting to a bunch of useless general junk ones. Suggest looking for niche ones, these will be in your industry and be a good on-target link, worth far more than a webmaster deep-link.

seo next

25th July 2010, 22:12

None of these are real ways to get links ....
Blogs : Very very slow method of getting links only if your content is exceptional..
Link Swap: send many emails to get a few links.. worth the time?
Newsletter for links: I have heard this for the first time..
Directoires : Can still be considered as a way of getting links but most of these links are low quality..

Infact i dont think getting quick links in the first place will help you much infact it is dangerous if you build quick links as your link profile will look very un natural if you dont continue the speed...

herodigital

26th July 2010, 09:40

Without a doubt the quickest way to get links is to buy them.

But this is grey hat at best. Google does not really like links that have been bought because it manipulates rankings.

That said, I've yet to see a serious campaign that does not integrate link purchasing in some form.

The next quickest way to get links is, of course, content. Specifically "linkbait". What this means is a piece of content that is so damn cool that it must be shared. It could be a simple as a picture, or a video or a newsworthy story. Linkbait is very, very hard to create, but I would respect any company that tries it. Keep plugging at the original content to get the users in, get people linking to the site naturally, and you will see LONG-TERM success.

And seriously don't waste your time on directory links.

Matt

-Joe-

26th July 2010, 10:45

Parkwood IM

26th July 2010, 10:56

Why buy them? If you know how to make them properly (i.e. not the method in this thread!) then it's a lot cheaper.
I'm sure in reality, most people will generate their own links

However, seeing as this thread is about the fastest way to build links and not the cheapest, I don't think many will disagree that buying them is one of the fastest ways

herodigital

26th July 2010, 11:08

Why buy them? If you know how to make them properly (i.e. not the method in this thread!) then it's a lot cheaper.

for the reason mentioned above - it IS the quickest way, though not necessarily the best.

Ali-v-8

26th July 2010, 11:20

What is your solution? I would really like to hear it.
IMO it wasnt a bad list. I would have added getting signature links from forums such as this. But helpful all the same.

None of these are real ways to get links ....
Blogs : Very very slow method of getting links only if your content is exceptional..
Link Swap: send many emails to get a few links.. worth the time?
Newsletter for links: I have heard this for the first time..
Directoires : Can still be considered as a way of getting links but most of these links are low quality..

Infact i dont think getting quick links in the first place will help you much infact it is dangerous if you build quick links as your link profile will look very un natural if you dont continue the speed...

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 11:21

Newsletter for links: I have heard this for the first time..

Idea being you can offer Newsletter spots in return for adverts on websites.

Its just another option, and if the newsletter offers good, targeted content, then people will request it, read it and advertiser knows they'll be seen by xxx amount of potential buyers.

Got to be better than a normal text link swap...

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 11:35

dangerous if you build quick links as your link profile will look very
unnatural

Not much choice these days, you must get links out there and as many as possible.

No links - you wont stand out, and nobody will find you. The free SERPS won't set the world on fire - you need adverts and links to draw people to your business website.

Its too easy for search engine operators to drop you to position No. 500 (if they feel like it), forcing you to buy their adverts anyway :( All they need do is flick a switch and bye bye website, you're in the depths where noone will go to page 500 to find you.

Most people using a search engine expect to find what they are looking for on the first page of results, says a US study.

At most, people will go through three pages of results before giving up

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4900742.stm

Ali-v-8

26th July 2010, 13:24

I have to agree with you there :eek:
But the article you posted is from 2006

Not much choice these days, you must get links out there and as many as possible.

No links - you wont stand out, and nobody will find you. The free SERPS won't set the world on fire - you need adverts and links to draw people to your business website.

Its too easy for search engine operators to drop you to position No. 500 (if they feel like it), forcing you to buy their adverts anyway :( All they need do is flick a switch and bye bye website, you're in the depths where noone will go to page 500 to find you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4900742.stm

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 15:19

But the article you posted is from 2006

Date is irrelevant,

I'd say people move to another engine if they dont find something on the 1st page of Google these days. There's too many alternative search tools now, more choice and better results elsewhere.

Its 2010, and search has evolved beyond Google. I'd suggest there's 200 (known) or more, niche engines doing what Google does, but better and faster. A lot of those in Travel sectors alone - and they get millions of visitors and billions of searches every single year.

I'd say people go to Google, can't find stuff, then hit Yahoo and see if that throws up anything, failing that perhaps Dogpile meta search, then a niche directory/search engine.. Unless they go straight to the niche site first, completely bypassing all search engines, which is more likely than ever before.

People have a wide-choice that can take them to information far quicker than Google - and people now want fast search results, the web is about speed.

OldWelshGuy

26th July 2010, 15:45

Date is irrelevant,

I'd say people move to another engine if they dont find something on the 1st page of Google these days. There's too many alternative search tools now, more choice and better results elsewhere.

Its 2010, and search has evolved beyond Google. I'd suggest there's 200 (known) or more, niche engines doing what Google does, but better and faster. A lot of those in Travel sectors alone - and they get millions of visitors and billions of searches every single year.

I'd say people go to Google, can't find stuff, then hit Yahoo and see if that throws up anything, failing that perhaps Dogpile meta search, then a niche directory/search engine.. Unless they go straight to the niche site first, completely bypassing all search engines, which is more likely than ever before.

People have a wide-choice that can take them to information far quicker than Google - and people now want fast search results, the web is about speed.

Fact still remains though that Google is delevering mostly 70-90% of traffic to most sites. Yes sites like facebook get more traffic in the uk, but people go to google to find stuff, and that alone. Reasearch says that people try google, if the results are rubbish, they change their search phrase and try again. :)

I agree with regard verticals though especially travel. But then again, google will launch its own vertical travel portal soon, so that will pretty much kill all the others off.

Ali-v-8

26th July 2010, 15:47

But with face book the results when you search are provided to you via BING.
Looks like Bing may have got it going on finally.

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 16:13

Yeah, you'll just have the major niche providers doing a partnership with a major seach provider or not as the case might be.

mmmm, can't see Google taking out someone like Expedia or Totaljobs Group though - Totaljobs etc have too many followers, their total monsters at the niche thing..

Hmmmm, power games.

herodigital

26th July 2010, 16:20

Date is irrelevant,

I'd say people move to another engine if they dont find something on the 1st page of Google these days. There's too many alternative search tools now, more choice and better results elsewhere.

Its 2010, and search has evolved beyond Google. I'd suggest there's 200 (known) or more, niche engines doing what Google does, but better and faster. A lot of those in Travel sectors alone - and they get millions of visitors and billions of searches every single year.

I'd say people go to Google, can't find stuff, then hit Yahoo and see if that throws up anything, failing that perhaps Dogpile meta search, then a niche directory/search engine.. Unless they go straight to the niche site first, completely bypassing all search engines, which is more likely than ever before.

People have a wide-choice that can take them to information far quicker than Google - and people now want fast search results, the web is about speed.

no offence, but what you just said is complete and utter madness. Google have rockrted to the top of their game with good reason i think they absolutely deserve it. there are certainly no signs of anybody toppling them - would you care to show me a better search tool than google?

OldWelshGuy

26th July 2010, 16:39

The Teoma algorithm was and probably is better than Google.

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 17:47

would you care to show me a better search tool than google?

There are search engines for every industry imaginable - and each engine's subject matter is highly targeted.

But any SERPS position gained is minimal clickthrough compared to paid advertising slots. This is the reason for ad slots being above the natural results - the engines want those displayed and clicked on first.

OldWelshGuy

26th July 2010, 18:20

yep agreed with evD here, the organic results are merely a vehicle for the paid revenue. But Google need to make sure that they don't kill the golden goose (which currently theya re doing via a cluttered SERP interface)

MASSEY

26th July 2010, 19:24

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 21:00

It probably is a way to get links quick, but they are low quality crap.

The metods of links you suggest , surely only help for the easy terms to optimise for, more competitive terms require link purchase.

So surely buying is the fastest way to get links. :|

low performing links are a huge problem that's not going to go away anytime soon. Many have potentially solved the problem and done so with new targeted search tools - I've seen a lot of them myself - but they aren't well-known, which is why I always say to search deep and far in the search engines to locate them.

They do exist and the links will be targeted. I'm sure business owners could get some really class weblinks from such websites/hubs - but the downside is to do a lot of searching. But no pain, no gain!

Buying isn't the fastest route, unless you just want any old link. Surely if your paying for it, you want the most targeted links you can get..... so from a general link viewpoint, a viral element is needed to speed up the link building process.

herodigital

26th July 2010, 21:53

There are search engines for every industry imaginable - and each engine's subject matter is highly targeted.

But any SERPS position gained is minimal clickthrough compared to paid advertising slots. This is the reason for ad slots being above the natural results - the engines want those displayed and clicked on first.

I'm sure there are search engines for niche's and so forth but I don't think they will return the quality of results that Google does. Google is one of the most real-time engines also, thanks to it's Twitter integration, plus it's ability to search products and blogs/news.

eventdomain

26th July 2010, 23:20

but I don't think they will return the quality of results that Google does

there's quite a few that IMHO DO a better job than Google right now, and some of these engines have been going for a few years now.

One general engine that caught my eye is http://www.cuil.com/ and I bet it gets a ton of searchers, which is where the value is.

http://www.gasta.com/ is another, not the most attractive engine, but its been going since 1998, and 1 month @ €3.00 per keyword seems cheap to me.

I also recommend www.Galaxy.com (http://www.Galaxy.com) as its only $9.95 for a link on an established directory.

I'm putting together the most perfect engine list available. The list will be for start-up purposes mostly, and has served me well and got me some pretty fast external links for a number of my projects and directories over the years.

These will be well-known directories/engines, with good usage. No useless weblinks in this list, and its mostly all free.

But to get some going quickly here is another list I recommend:

http://www.strongestlinks.com/specific_directories.php?sortcolumn=PRa

adventurelife

27th July 2010, 00:13

I have always found the way to get links is be different. For that last 4 years I have done a weeks adventure holiday for those coming back from the war zones without arms and legs for free. Just may way of putting something back. I have never, ever marketed that we do it. However, they now need to raise funds so we will go on a marketing drive over the next few months in order to raise some cash for the guys and girls.

The above will get me links lots off, I am taking advantage because after 4 years they have asked me to.

Over the years we have done many, many different things that have driven links without us really knowing what was going on. Many TV programmes that everyone thinks are gold dust have provided mor revenue by links than the TV exposure.

Anyway I am wandering

Parkwood IM

27th July 2010, 06:52

Buying isn't the fastest route, unless you just want any old link. Surely if your paying for it, you want the most targeted links you can get..... so from a general link viewpoint, a viral element is needed to speed up the link building process.
Who says that paid links have to be low quality?

Most people paying for links are looking to increase their SERPs rankings so highly targeted isn't always the best.

Would you prefer a PR0 link from the highly relevant website or the PR8 link from an unrelated one?

I know which one I'd choose.

zigojacko

27th July 2010, 07:40

Would you prefer a PR0 link from the highly relevant website or the PR8 link from an unrelated one?

I know which one I'd choose.

Which one?

Parkwood IM

27th July 2010, 07:54

The PR8... Wouldn't you agree?

herodigital

27th July 2010, 07:56

The PR8... Wouldn't you agree?

i agree ;)

eventdomain

27th July 2010, 12:51

Most people paying for links are looking to increase their SERPs rankings so highly targeted isn't always the best.

Then their linking for the wrong reasons - they should be getting links for the direct traffic, but the SERPS being controlled as they are, aren't the most reliable source of visitors.

Would you prefer a PR0 link from the highly relevant website or the PR8 link from an unrelated one?

I go for the PR0, why?

1. Pagerank is just an Ego enhancer

2. Who wants an unrelated link - its not going to do you any favours. Off-target links dont convert into sales - and they wont help your rankings in Google.

A solid, steady weblink on a highly targeted website is always a good investment. Most of these will be long-term links too, and be picked up cheaply from directories and some search engines. You try and get the same thing from MSN or Google, I know what they will say........

Ofcourse, you could try Yahoo, but that'll cost you $299 a year for a general weblink only.

Parkwood IM

27th July 2010, 14:20

Then their linking for the wrong reasons - they should be getting links for the direct traffic, but the SERPS being controlled as they are, aren't the most reliable source of visitors
In your opinion

Pagerank is just an Ego enhancer
Page rank can be an ego enhancer, but it's a whole lot more than just that

Who wants an unrelated link - its not going to do you any favours.
This depends entirely what the purpose of that unrelated link is.

Off-target links dont convert into sales
Links don't convert into sales whether they are on or off-target.

Sales = Relevant prospects + Good product

and they wont help your rankings in Google.
They will

I, Brian

27th July 2010, 15:58

Would you prefer a PR0 link from the highly relevant website or the PR8 link from an unrelated one?

I know which one I'd choose.

This type of thinking cripples link building, IMO. The PR chases have all learned to know better. The PR8 would almost certainly not pass any juice, as many have found to their cost over the years. So the choice becomes one of a link on a site pushing almost no juice, vs one that pushes none. Bad choice.

What is more ideal is that a link carries some degree of weight, not simply in terms of it's placement, but also its semantic relationships, and ability to deliver trackable traffic as well.

2c.

sess4561

27th July 2010, 16:12

PR is not the be-all-end-all. But most SEO's would give their left arm for a link from a PR8 even if its not related.

Not for traffic, but purely for pushing your keyword up the rankings.

I have recently attained a PR6, that has over night drastically increased my rankings.

The site is not particularly related to mine, but proves that PR does still have some purpose in choosing where you want links coming from, amonst other things.

eventdomain

27th July 2010, 16:29

In your opinion

Yep, and my opinion is credible bcos I own a crawler based engine, thus know a lot more about it than you do.

Also Pagerank is just a guide to the worth of a website/page. There's pleanty of garbage/awful sites with high PR, and their junk. PR is too easily manipulated and that means hard to trust the credibility of inflated PR via link swapping.

Sales = Relevant prospects + Good product

Relevant prospects? Difficult to get those from junk, general weblinks I'm afraid.

They will

No they won't bcos Google devalues general, all-purpose weblinks in favour of relevancy/related links. Its no secret.

Google wants quality/authority and relevance of linking sites. There's a ton of info out there that backs this up.

Higher PR pages don't rank well necessarily. PR is not used as strongly as it has been in the past.

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013052.html

The perfect link is a link that brings you traffic that is interested in your site (relevant). General links won't pass much of this targeted traffic, infact my logs show 67% of visitors to be the wrong type, and they stay only a few seconds compared to the correct visitor who stays for hours and hours.

i dont believe in 'Pagerank sculpting', when a targeted visitor has more value.

eventdomain

27th July 2010, 16:37

But most SEO's would give their left arm for a link from a PR8 even if its not related.

Look, if someone offered my company sites a PR8 link, I wouldn't turn it down. But in nearly 8 years this hasn't been offered to us nor granted yet :( and we own very authoritative sites indeed.

I'd much rather have the next 10'000 visitors hitting my sites than a green pixel :D

I'm just saying you're better of going after targeted traffic, than general traffic.

MASSEY

27th July 2010, 19:22

weblinks in this list, and its mostly all free.

But to get some going quickly here is another list I recommend:

http://www.strongestlinks.com/specific_directories.php?sortcolumn=PRa

One minute you say buying links is not the quickes solution, in the next breath you state the above,

So which is it :redface:

eventdomain

27th July 2010, 21:14

I wouldn't pay nor advise to get on too many general websites, the traffic won't be right, even though its probably the fastest way to obtain single links. BUT a couple of very carefully selected ones is okay for generating some good traffic - and this is to help get the traffic flowing, and to get some adverts out there, as this gives credibility and get websites standing out.

For mass link acquisitions, a different approach is necessary, and for that you'll need links on highly visited sites which cost major cash per link spot. Eg: £500 a link (at least).

Parkwood IM

28th July 2010, 06:55

Relevant prospects? Difficult to get those from junk, general weblinks I'm afraid.
I think you're (still) totally missing the point.

By increasing your SERP position for a relevant search phrase, this will result in more relevant traffic.

Surely you can agree on this?

sess4561 has experience of such SERPs boosts from unrelated high-authority backlinks and so do I, as I'm sure many others do.

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/013052.html
It's 2010.

In your own words, you've not had the experience of a high PR link in 8 years and you have a majority of irrelevant traffic, so I urge you to test some new things out to see what actually works for yourself instead of relying on 3 year old articles

It's very difficult to know who or what to believe online so the only way to really know is trying for yourself

eventdomain

28th July 2010, 11:51

By increasing your SERP position for a relevant search phrase, this will result in more relevant traffic.

You can assume I know what a SERP is, you can also assume I know any advantage from a single serp entry, amongst 1000's, is going to mean minimal exposure. And I mean minimal as in useless.

Surely you can agree on this?

No I will never agree, bcos I own a crawler engine, and know how to reduce benefit for users and bcos of this, I and every other engine will use this to our advantage. This is business mate! and you can't give away too much for free..... Plus general engines don't send relevant traffic - they send General traffic. The traffic only becomes relevant IF it finds the website its looking for and lands on that site - then its relevant. Until traffic is directed somewhere, its only general traffic.

Everybody knows the free results are the product for the users, this is how the engines attract users en-mass, and results in 2 major sources of value:

1. A huge user base

2. A massive product of information

now, the SERPS have to be given for free, and being totally free, the engines aren't making money from the serps directly and losing out (to a point), so I assure you they aren't going to make the freebie too advantageous. They might make it attractive, to be worth being listed/indexed, but can remove the advantage.

So.... even though you may get 1000 visitors hitting your website, you'll lose 50% to mistake clicks, and perhaps 30% in just the wrong visitor type and only 20% being the right visitor for you, where maybe only 0.5% will convert to a paying client.

I don't call that amazing at all, and you want to talk up the engine thats sending you this stuff?

sess4561 has experience of such SERPs boosts from unrelated high-authority backlinks and so do I, as I'm sure many others do.

So do I, so what? but in truth even though I get pretty good traffic, less than 1% converts, but that's just the normal occupational hazzard of being listed on engines, who's main goal is to drive a ton of general people to every website in the world.

You narrow that traffic down, redirect it accurately, give it its own home - and now things start to get interesting for businesses.

For some reason, all that general traffic isn't being filtered easily, or more of it would hit everybody's website in the thousands each day, each hour even. This is not happening.

But getting back to fast link aquisition, there's 2 problems here:

1. People/forums/blogs etc are still talking as if everyone world-wide wants the same en-mass link surge - which they don't.

2. People endlessly complain about lack of ROI/results whatever, then go out of their way to chase traffic that'll never convert in a million years.

People are to blame for their own actions, you cannot expect good conversions if the traffic is the wrong type - yet people still chase it, crave it and spend vast sums of cash trying to acquire it. :eek:

Whats missing is targeted links - enmass. But I think this is unobtainable due to the huge lack of targeted resource websites

Jay-UK

28th July 2010, 13:10

so many contradictions in this thread, its unreal.

Trial and Error is key and is what works best - means you take away the nonsense from the theory and know what works yourself.

Parkwood IM

28th July 2010, 13:16

any advantage from a single serp entry, amongst 1000's, is going to mean minimal exposure. And I mean minimal as in useless.
Everyone in the world spending time and money optimising their websites for organic search traffic disagrees with you

Sorensenp

28th July 2010, 13:16

Link Building is the one of the best way (tool) to increase your website visibility in search results. Link building is hard, tough and it requires a lot of patience, practice and the most important thing is Time because it's demand increase day by day.

Parkwood IM

28th July 2010, 13:20

MASSEY

28th July 2010, 14:10

No I will never agree, bcos I own a crawler engine, and know how to reduce benefit for users and bcos of this, I and every other engine will use this to our advantage. sites

You say that as if it is relevant, what % of the search market do you have 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

You can not compare your crawler engine to the big search engines that we are talking about can you :D

eventdomain

28th July 2010, 14:53

Everyone in the world spending time and money optimising their websites for organic search traffic disagrees with you

hmmmm,

My 240'000 users don't care if a website is SEO'd or not as long as they find their relevant information or obtain their targeted weblink easily. So you're wrong on that score.

I wonder if Expedia's users care about how high Expedia sits in some engine - they probably dont give a stuff, so long as Expedia delivers their targeted information damn quick when they arrive at the site.

Just because a website is SEO'd doesn't mean its guaranteed a good SERP position at all. There aren't enough places for starters, chances are the average biz site will be on page 100 plus.

I've seen really good websites, SEO'd, yet lying in naff positions due to battling someone elses efforts/website. This website is a classic example, sitting at on page 19 (pos. 190) in Google,

and its a pretty good travel engine in its own right too:

http://www.1234travel.com/search.htm

you cannot possibly tell me that the Travel site above, desperately needs more than a few decent weblinks to move it up the rankings. I reckon if the owner got 30 on-target links, this will solve the problem (short-term) for them, so shouldn't be difficult to achieve a decent position in most engines and increase the traffic significantly.

There's too many variables involved to successfully & constantly win the exposure battle. You won't do this by SEO on its own:

1. The engines themselves will stop you
2. Other websites will compete with you
3. A simple viral idea will stop you
4. Spending large amounts of cash will defeat you

But however exposure is obtained, its going to cost long-term to remain at a certain position, and to stand out effectively enough. And that means buying of links and adverts.

eventdomain

28th July 2010, 15:43

You say that as if it is relevant, what % of the search market do you have 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

You can not compare your crawler engine to the big search engines that we are talking about can you :D

But my point is each engine decides what you're going to get from its own SERPS, and exactly how difficult it will make your task in getting any advantage. They all have different rules/agendas.

Btw, I own a bit more than 1% of search :D

MASSEY

28th July 2010, 15:45

Btw, I own a bit more than 1% of search :D

Which planet is that on then ....

directmarketingadvice

28th July 2010, 15:48

This type of thinking cripples link building, IMO. The PR chases have all learned to know better. The PR8 would almost certainly not pass any juice

How come?

Steve

eventdomain

28th July 2010, 15:55

Which planet is that on then ....

Sorry, I don't deal with webmasters I'm afraid - just large Hotel chains :D

eventdomain

28th July 2010, 15:57

How come?

Steve

Google devalued any link worth maybe?

Link building is hard, tough and it requires a lot of patience, practice and the most important thing is Time because it's demand increase day by day.

One of those most intelligent quotes I've seen for a while.

I, Brian

28th July 2010, 20:38

How come?

Steve

Mostly from owners of high PR pages being chased by advertisers, publishing them up, and then getting hit by Google.

Buying PR started to get really popular from 2003, so any high PR sites and pages have been almost certainly thoroughly chased and devalued - where they were available for links.

The lucky ones simply burned their money on pages passing no value. But Google has often been very hard on those buying links for PR purposes, and a lot ended up with penalised websites for doing so in a very obivous way, such as buying links on high PR pages from Text Link Brokers and similar.

Most experienced SEO's I think have long learned to keep away from trying to buy links on higher PR pages, and instead look for natural ways to get editorial approved links on strong websites instead.

eventdomain

28th July 2010, 21:29

instead look for natural ways to get editorial approved links on strong websites instead.

But we all know this is just impossible as very few websites are set up to accept articles. And the ones that do either have very strict entry controls or are article banks that will no-follow the pages.

Only editorial I know about is the media, and they won't publish weblinks or any old naff article, as they demand pure newsworthy websites before they'll print anything.

Most of the links you speak of, will be favour for favour eg: my famous website links to someone I met on a forum, who also does me great favours - kind of thing.

I'd say you would have to be very lucky indeed, even though I've given a few links out on here, I don't make a habit of it. Like I keep saying, webspace is property and some sites are worth £££££££.

directmarketingadvice

28th July 2010, 21:40

Buying PR started to get really popular from 2003, so any high PR sites and pages have been almost certainly thoroughly chased and devalued

You mean google would have devalued links coming from those pages?

i.e. Looks like a PR8 (in the toolbar), but for link purposes, it's not an 8?

Steve

I, Brian

29th July 2010, 10:36

You mean google would have devalued links coming from those pages?

i.e. Looks like a PR8 (in the toolbar), but for link purposes, it's not an 8?

Steve

Indeed - if Google felt a high-PR page was being misused for SEO purposes, Google could be expected to prevent the page, or even the full domain, from passing any PR/link benefits.

I, Brian

29th July 2010, 10:42

Only editorial I know about is the media, and they won't publish weblinks or any old naff article, as they demand pure newsworthy websites before they'll print anything.

Indeed, but it's possible to focus on trying to be newsworthy:
http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=150098

eventdomain

29th July 2010, 13:03

trying to be newsworthy:

and many fail due to badly written press releases. Newspapers get hundreds per day and 90% get binned. It's pointless using the online news databanks, Journalists don't read them, apart from two:

http://www.sourcewire.com/

http://www.responsesource.com/index_pr.php

and will cost you upto £250 per category to recieve enquiries direct from Journalists via the sites, although I'm unsure there's any solid evidence that Journalists contact via these services.

But they may scout them to gain more information on a story. Either way, it will cost you a lot of cash to get listed. Suggest its only worth it, if you are running a full on PR campaign, and use a PR agency to represent you. Used both these services myself, but I didn't pay for them - so its different for me I guess.

Generally, Press databases are used to spam press releases to get free one-way links, but they aren't usually effective.

You might also try:

http://www.journalism.co.uk/72/