Shitty link networks

[Brian Turner]

Got to vent:

Been trying to expand my link services in order to provide better redundancy for clients. That means trying out new link networks outside of my own, which I've discovered by invitation, research, and reverse engineering some competitors.

Trouble is, it has to be said, most of these networks are utter shit.

I just cancelled one $350/month tester campaign I set up a few weeks ago after finding Yahoo! hadn't found any links I hadn't already set up myself.

However, when I received an email from the "SEO company" along with a list of links, all they'd done is shoved an article directory database across dozens of domains, a number of which appear to be hosted on previously expired domains. There was no relation to topic and Google hadn't cached the vast majority of these pages.

JFC - this is the sort of shit I abandoned years ago - one of the first link development projects I started was autogenerating pages from a library of synonyms, with keywords either inserted or listed within the body copy.

But low PR even then meant low crawl rate and I've since focused on building better and better websites for link development purposes - to provide better quality links.

I have 3 different article directory databases, which I could have used to create around 100 article sites, each based around a specific topic - but I was too busy to join that party when it peaked a couple of years back, and nowadays I wouldn't be able to develop them seriously.

Point is I abandoned the seriously low quality link shit because it's shit - so I'm pretty astonished when I find other SEO companies offering link development leveraging methods I abandoned years ago as too low quality.

People - be warned - it's not the link volume you want, and it's not even the link PR - you want links on older domains that never expired, allow for links in body text, and especially on topic, PR a bonus, and the page where your link is at linked to from other sites where possible.

If you throw money at heavy duplicated low content links, you're getting exactly what you paid for, and if like me, you just threw your money away.

Oh - one more thing - why do these so-called SEO companies think it's fine to stick links together regardless of topic? I don't want my links sat next to pharma and gambling links - don't they realise that Google has this thing called network theory for processing links by association?

Jeez, someone show me some basic level of competence here, let alone professionalism!

ADDED: And why are their staff so fcking clueless? I just got one email me, stating that for cheap links, why should I expect the pages the links to be on to be cached by Google? Well, duh-uh - because Google isn't goining to count the links if it won't index them. I haven't yet met an assistant at any of these so-called link-based SEO companies who seems to know a single thing about links, other than apparently any link is good for ranking purposes. Yeah, sure.

(Rank over ).