How web 2.0 backlinks help to rank the keywords ?

[Axphey]

I lately created some web 2.0 high authority backlink for one of my client, but he accused me that web 2.0 back links have almost childish OFF page SEO strategy. This thought ponder me to reconsider the importance of web 2.0 backlink strategy.

 

[fisicx]

Eh?

What do you consider a web 2.0 high authority backlink? Very few links associated with the very old and outdated web2 concept are worth anything at all.

 

[Elliottc26]

I take it you mean by buying cheap expired web 2.0 back-links by buying expired 2.0 sites you consider high PA in order to rank a website quickly for easy search terms that don't convert all for £100?

If so, then this is an irrelevant strategy that does nothing for the site in terms of signals and will have, at some point, negative effects. Quick and easy = problems.

Then someone will have to unpick and disavow all this and it's more hassle plus wasting clients' money. Build a solid strategy and get relevant and healthy links; otherwise, it's pointless.

 

[Axphey]

Some web 2.0 sites with good web matrix is what i m referring to.

 

[fisicx]

Some web 2.0 sites with good web matrix is what i m referring to.

That's doesn't mean anything. You are using buzzwords for a strategy that just doesn't work.

Give us an example of on of these sites.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a web 2.0 site. It's a made up descriptor.

 

[Axphey]

I always builds a solid backlinking strategy, but perhaps here what i am guessing that the clients could have been goofed up earlier by some xyz backlink provider.

 

[Axphey]

That's doesn't mean anything. You are using buzzwords for a strategy that just doesn't work.

Give us an example of on of these sites.

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a web 2.0 site. It's a made up descriptor.

Many forums every year provides list of top web 2.0 sites for to take backlink from. When i use tools to evaluate them i found some poor web matrix of most of them.

 

[Elliottc26]

Although web 2.0 generally is understood to be sites that have user generated content like blogs and forums, I have spent countless hours removing and disavowing harmful links from poor sites that did nothing except cause penalties, and headaches.

 

[fisicx]

Many forums every year provides list of top web 2.0 sites for to take backlink from. When i use tools to evaluate them i found some poor web matrix of most of them.

And that's because any list published on any forum will be full of junk sites.

Any link you generate will have zero values. Google is very good at spotting these sort of links and ignoring them.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

I take it you mean by buying cheap expired web 2.0 back-links by buying expired 2.0 sites you consider high PA in order to rank a website quickly for easy search terms that don't convert all for £100?

If so, then this is an irrelevant strategy that does nothing for the site in terms of signals and will have, at some point, negative effects. Quick and easy = problems.

Then someone will have to unpick and disavow all this and it's more hassle plus wasting clients' money. Build a solid strategy and get relevant and healthy links; otherwise, it's pointless.

Fail

And that's because any list published on any forum will be full of junk sites.

Any link you generate will have zero values. Google is very good at spotting these sort of links and ignoring them.

Extreme fail

 

[fisicx]

sigh....

This coming from the man who still thinks a no-follow link is the same as a followed link.

Ultra Fail

 

[Clinton]

I always builds a solid backlinking strategy....

Going by your posts in this thread I don't think you have the vaguest idea of what constitutes solid backlinking.

 

[Axphey]

Going by your posts in this thread I don't think you have the vaguest idea of what constitutes solid backlinking.

I usually do manual backlinking by doing competitor analysis via premium tools. I also
avoid web 2.0 sometimes since at times it's risky.

 

[justinaldridge]

I am always stunned that people are still doing these Web 2.0 type links. They definitely used to work but it's very high risk.

We took on a client that was ranking exceptionally well through Web 2.0 type links and he was making a fortune in a highly competitive sector.

Unfortunately whilst trying to help protect his website...Google caught up with him and his rankings tanked. From hero to zero in very little time.

They are just not worth using, avoid at all costs! Google is not stupid.

 

[ZeroDouble]

IMO Web2s are just like pretty much any other link type. They'll only harm your rankings if you use them wrong, otherwise they'll most likely help. Generally speaking, link types don't inherently cause penalties, only poor SEO strategies do.