Jump to content

cf1905

Spartan Inner Circle Member
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. The inner workings of their algorithm are beyond me. What it seems to do is spot low to medium quality PBN's very easily. It doesn't find all of them, but in my market for every site where I monitor there backlinks, it finds a handful of network sites. Even for my own money page it correctly identifies a few of my PBNs even though I build them to be real sites in most cases. Its intended to find links that are toxic to try and remove, but this is how I would use this feature.
  2. I am always looking for new tools and stumbled upon this one the other day. Its a free backlink checker (with some limitations if you don't subscribe) called openlinkprofiler. After a few uses it will ask you to create a free account which will take you over to their other website https://www.seoprofiler.com. In the dashboard you can check the backlinks under link profiler - backlinks, and enter in the website you would like from there. At least for my projects, it has done a good job finding links from a great deal of unique domains. It doesn't seem to find as many sumtotal links as the other major backlink checkers, but it does seem to find more links from unique domains than they do in my experience. It has found several links that are sort of a big deal that Ahrefs / majestic have not. Some of this may be due to it is a smaller tool and many more sites are aware of ahrefs / majestic and block the bots. Might be worth a look for some of you. EDIT: Another great tip with this tool is its 'link detoxification' feature. Not really for its intended use, rather plugin one of your competitors and it does a really great job of finding PBN's.
  3. Looks like I found a base64 site on my money site unfortunately. Is the only way to pull this off with infected themes / plugins, or could this be the result of things such as SQL injections? Anyways, I wonder if Google gives any credit for these links since they do not show up on the live version of the site.
  4. Mike I'm going to start p90x again next week, maybe we should be accountability partners lol.
  5. Interestingly enough, there was speculation and a few patents filed where google was said to start accounting for link relevancy in a lot greater of detail for a given site. So far, that doesn't seem to be working out to well for them, since re-themeing sites is still alive and well.
  6. Nice find, thanks for sharing.
  7. After some research it appears that YT used to have one, but they decided to get rid of it last year. It looks like one would have to rely on third party metrics to get this sort of information now. There seems to be a few services out there such as http://www.videocents.com/, but with all the garbage out there like market samurai, I am somewhat hesitant. I might give it a go as its only $95 and see how it does.
  8. I am moving a little bit into Youtube SEO and one thing I haven't been able to find is official search statistics for a given kw on youtube from Google. Google Keyword Planner just checks the google serps, but I can't seem to find anything that just scouts through Youtube. Is there some sort of official tool out there that I am somehow missing?
  9. Yes, use htaccess, or some control panels have it as well.
  10. You shouldn't mass direct all broken links back to the homepage. John Mueller stated (this might be a grain of salt here) that Google internally treats massive, senseless redirects like this as a soft 404. In other words, no ranking power transferred. Recreate the page if you can, if not hopefully you are buying semi-relevant network sites if so create a new page and 301 to the new page and do this on a case by case basis where it makes sense per each link. Using the latter, I typically only have to create a few pages, not that much more work.
  11. 24 hour coupon for best of the web 50% off instanth8ix
  12. From personal experience, and with one of my sites ranking in the 7 pack, I feel citations will do very little to improve your overall position in the serps. It will however help you get into the 7 pack.
  13. Watched the complete video. Basically it seems the results from both what he described and the feedback in this forum are expired domains that may have less than a handful of links from authority sites. His tool is just crawling the link you provide, or crawling the links provided in the google serps per the kw's you provide. You could get the same results just running Screaming Frog (excellent tool to have and the cost for an annual license is almost what this tool cost's per month). I have personally spent a great deal of time using this method and it isn't the greatest to be honest. You might find a domain with maybe one strong link, with the rest of the link profile leaving much to b e desired. This may work in some low competition markets, but for anything tougher than that I would rather put effort in finding more robust domains. And as you mentioned Blaine, I too take the time and effort to build legitimate sites - or even traffic delivering sites and I don't want to waste all that time, money and energy on a weak site. Curious if maybe a few tweaks will deliver better results for you, but my initial thoughts are no. Either way I don't think you will get the results you were hoping for, thanks for posting this looking forward to any future feedback you provide on this.
  14. I think their strategy is to: 1. Monitor Google and copy any innovation they make late. 2. Continue to hope people with new computers don't notice bing has been set as their default search engine.
  15. Its been awhile since I looked at the HTML of wikipedia, but is naming your DIVs something thats keyword related actually helpful, e.g. <div id="pizza"> ? If so, I suppose that would make sense considering DIVs are nothing more than containers that usually store different sections of content.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.