Re: Sandbox article - brief
- From: David <seodave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 15:27:27 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 03:35:51 GMT, Sam wrote:
If they have some decent links they can also get rankings faster as
well (that one lacks decent links, bought for the name, I like it).
Are you buying actual expired domains (date of registration resets)?
If so that might be the problem, Google resets them!
How about being able to go back to old links that already have pagerank
and changing the links. What do you think of that?
That would make no difference to the sandbox delay.
You see the really
cool part about spamming is you can check out the backlinks you've
collected at your older sites, like chrissy baby, that you no longer
work for or care about,
Did they fire you for getting the site banned Bob?
and then go back to those memberlists and other
sites that you have usernames and paswords at and remove the old chrissy
baby link and in its place put your new domains and new links instead.
If old links help you get out of the sandbox fast then my new domains
should warp right up the serps wouldn't you say?
No, since to Google they are new links to a new site, so the timing is
reset. Think about it for a minute and it will click (or should anyway).
Tell me Bob are you finding comment SPAM no longer works as well/quickly as
it used to?
If so that's because Google now delays link benefit, you need to keep links
for at least a year for it to pass full benefit. I think Google did it this
way to reduce the effects of comment SPAM and buying links, would be
interested to know how it's affected your newer sites.
At any rate with over
2000 old links (1998 to present) we should finally know what effect old
links that have decent pagerank have upon a site and if they relate at
all to what the sandbox effect is all about.
No we won't since they will be considered new links to Google since you
just added them. If the links are to a new site don't expect much for about
I have about 200 to go
through and should have them all updated within a week. I'm sick of all
the talk about the sandbox theories. It's time now for a 'man of action'
meaning moi to settle this once debate and for all!
ROFLOL you are very funny.
ps-the backlinks you get from showing up at web based usenet reader
sites is so low that you would need ten billion of them to have it do
anything for your sites. Don't know why you waste time linking them
I don't add sig links here for PR reasons, I know the amount passed is
practically worthless, still it does add a bunch of links that bots can
follow, so can increase spidering frequency. Highly unlikely to result in
better rankings though. Also people read Usenet and click on sig links.
You also never responded to my assertion that pagerank doesn't divide.
Whether a page has ten million links on it or 1 link on it those
outgoing links still get real close within a point of the pagerank of
the site they're linked at. I know you believe the pagerank gets divided
up amongst how many links are on a given page. But then if that were so
my sites would all be pr0's so explain that one if you can?
That would be because I try to ignore you, but this one is my first post
with a newsreader I'm trying out, so what the hell.
Els thought I'd give what you use for reading Usenet
http://www.40tude.com/dialog/ a try. I like it so far, seems better than
Forte' Agent (which I've used for years) for example can have multiple
email accounts without the hassle of loading multiple windows. Not figured
out how to thread Usenet posts in view yet though (like it that way) :-)
PageRank, how to use it http://www.seo-gold.com/tutorial/pagerank.html
Google AdSense Tips http://www.morearnings.com/category/adsense/
- Re: Sandbox article - brief
- From: Sam
- Re: Sandbox article - brief
- Prev by Date: Re: A fictional blackhat adventure
- Next by Date: using articles any benefit in seo?
- Previous by thread: Re: Sandbox article - brief
- Next by thread: Re: Sandbox article - brief