How to get powerful One-way backlinks from High PR Sites

[phantomtracking]

There are 100's of terrific sites you can get some awesome back links. Read this here and go for it!

First you sign up and after you confirm, go in and edit your profile. Your profile will allow you to place links and feeds in it. Put your link and the feed for your blog in the profile and treat it like the rest of the back links (Digg it, reddit it, turn it into an rss feed, etc). I used this as an example because of the template it uses is great. There are literally thousands of high pr sites using this platform. You can find as many as you like by conducting this search in Google:

inurl:displayKickPlace.kickAction

I do about five to ten a day with these. But they are great because most major news agencies are using them (Fox, etc). Don’t put more than one or two links in your profile and write a short bio you can paste into each one. These are pretty strict sites, but give big Google juice so don’t abuse them (I have had accounts deleted for 3 and 4 links so keep it down to 1 or 2) Most of mine have survived for months now so they are good. There are so many you can do this for weeks on end. Remember, if you have another site just create a different account with them (different username and email, etc). I have told nobody of this little goldmine, so go to town with it. But keep your patterns consistent and natural (i.e. 5-10 a day). Have fun!

[glas]

Great tip.

This is a good way to spend an hour or two each day if you have some specific keywords and pages to promote.

A lot of these sites accept blog posts and I think in-context anchor text is even more powerful than profile links.

Here's what I do. Write a short post, 250 - 500 words. Go to crewriter.com and spin it into 100 unique posts. And then create blog posts on sites such as inurl:displayKickPlace.kickAction will dig up.

It takes time and some patience but the results will be well worth the effort in the long run.

[Steve]

This is exactly what Angela & Paul's backlink service is. I think they are $8 & $5 a month for 40 or more sites all with high page rank.

I noticed Tim said that he didn't thinks these backlinks were worth very much. The high PR of the the site does not apply to your personal profile page. Recently I read in one of the Marketing Blueprint PDF's that he'd been experimenting with these and high PR seemed to filter through to the other pages after all.

I cancelled my subscription to Pauls backlink service after reading Tim's original comment and since I hadn't noticed any success with them.

Tim: What is your opinion of these sort of links now?

/Steve

[glas]

I just want to jump in here and say that from my experience profile links on sites of page rank 4 and above do work - but not instantly.

I have used Paul's and Angela's back-linking packets to rank on page 1 on Google for some very competitive terms. But it takes 100+ back-links and takes a month or two to start showing results.

Google is a slow behemoth.

I don't use the profile back-links so much anymore - preferring to post articles with anchor texts to high page rank Web. 2.0 sites. It's more satisfying

But either way back-links work - for the persistent and patient.

[MatthewT]

Hi guys,
Personally, I prefer backlinks from blog networks & content sites. Less time consuming as well if you are to do it yourself.

[sneddo]

Personally I like to use as many different backlink methods as I can.

Why are you guys limiting yourselvs to just one backlink type?

If all your links come a single type of site then it does not look very natural does it??

As for profile links I have tested them on a few sites with fantastic success, other sites with not so much success but still success.

the last 8 months non-paid google traffic for a site that solely uses profile links:

Jan: 40
Feb: 31
Mar: 50
Apr: 82
May: 114
Jun: 166
Jul: 255
Aug: 303

The site was new in December, this is one of the sites that has not done so well from the profile links, but I think it shows they do work and as has been mentioned here they need time to get working.

keyword selection is often the key to the speed of your success with profile links, if you pick a keyword that you already rank for, say your on page 4 then you will see much faster results then if you try to get your site ranked for a completly new keyword.

[phantomtracking]

Like Sneddo, I like to use as many different backlink methods as possible. Dont want to look spammy in any way by just focusing on one linking structure such as profile links etc.

As for Angela's links, when I used them, I was able to get them noticed by google fairly quickly by taking a few of the links I created and turn them into feeds, then submitted them to a few of the feed aggs and well as Submitting one to Digg and one to Reddit. That did the trick every time.

[venkyiyer58]

Personally I like to use as many different backlink methods as I can.

Why are you guys limiting yourselvs to just one backlink type?

If all your links come a single type of site then it does not look very natural does it??

As for profile links I have tested them on a few sites with fantastic success, other sites with not so much success but still success.

the last 8 months non-paid google traffic for a site that solely uses profile links:

Jan: 40
Feb: 31
Mar: 50
Apr: 82
May: 114
Jun: 166
Jul: 255
Aug: 303

The site was new in December, this is one of the sites that has not done so well from the profile links, but I think it shows they do work and as has been mentioned here they need time to get working.

keyword selection is often the key to the speed of your success with profile links, if you pick a keyword that you already rank for, say your on page 4 then you will see much faster results then if you try to get your site ranked for a completly new keyword.

If you are working with a new site, with no ranking yet, then the question of keywords that you are already ranking for does not arise. In such a case, do profile links work anyway - whether it takes time or not?

[Tim Buchalka]

Hi,

I sincerely believe profile links are overrated. Sometimes you can get a benefit but I find there is always a point when the good link juice disappears. This is, I believe what happens.

1. A new site with high PR is found (good!)

2. The "profile site" people add this to their collection (still good).

3. Soon 100's or 1000's of people start using them (whoops).

4. The site owner seeing 1000's of percents higher new accounts and lots more bandwidth gets worried.

5. The site owner identifies the spam accounts (which these effectively are). This is usually pretty easy because it's just a matter of looking for new accounts with no activity (after all most people create a new account, add a link or two and leave). they rarely contribute to the forum or whatever it is the site is about.

6. These accounts get deleted or mechanisms introduced to limit the effectivess.

7. Even if #5 and #6 never happen Google soon figures out there is a huge spike in backlinks and figures out the spammer links and discounts them.

Usually the only reason you get any results month after month is that you are adding new links with the profile sites each month. the new ones work for a while which replace the old ones no longer working.

But in the long term generally your results are poor. I note the success of sneddo posting above but would also mention that better results could likely have been achieved with non profile links.

Almost always you are providing no new content to profile link sites so for me it's going to be a waste of time.

Just my point of view

Regards


Tim

[glas]

Hey Tim, your concerns about profile backlinks reflect my concerns over their effectivness. The bottom line is - is the time it takes to make them worth the long term payoff?

From my experiences I'd have to say - probably yes.

Your concerns seems to be based on the premise that Google (and/or other search engines) monitor the same back-links over time and the value assigned to them can fluctuate depending on whether the links is deleted or its relation to other diverse links in other profiles.

From my experience, I don't think Google is that smart. Not yet anyways. The main problem seems to be getting your profile link indexed in the first place. Once it is indexed the "link juice" is assigned to the target url and not revisited.

As long as the link gets indexed before it is removed your target site gets the cudos. At least that's how it seems to me. I have ranked higher on Google for very competitive search terms than websites clearly targeting that same keyword (with the keywords in their url) - mainly through profile back-links.

Having said that, I do spend more time these days placing back-links in context on Web2.0 sites. It's more satisfying.

Lastly I would argue that leaving profile links is not spam. Spam is unsolicted messages. Google adwords is more spamy than a profile link. On sites where you can set up a profile and public link, registration is usually encouraged and the ability to leave a link is provided. Having a surge in members, whether they are actively contributing to forums or not, (or really a fan of this or that musician), is good for the site concerned. Being popular adds to their cudos.

There are a few webmasters that don't like profile back-link members but they seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Of course, if they don't want members to leave links in their profiles they shouldn't have made it possible in the first place .