I'd like to see the results of that effort. I find it hard to believe that those 'empty' links have any worth to them.
I don't really care what 'real' SEO 'professionals' are doing, this worked for me and I'm very happy with that.
It's fine if you believe that this worked for you. The reality is that it was something else that did it.
No...I don't think it was actually, considering that I didn't do anything else, and it's not a domain aging because it's not even a domain and because the particular URL I worked on is the only one that got to the top and I didn't add any content and I didn't promote it on any other media. So no, I think I can say with 99% certainty it was this method.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Care to show us the SERP that you think Angela's links provided you any benefit on? I should be able to point out exactly what it is that got you to where you are.
No, not giving away my niche. Anyway, you keep doing what you do and I'll keep doing what I do. I'm not bothered.
I can respect that. But I've been in SEO for almost 10 years now. I've worked on SEO teams for fortune 500 companies. I know what works and what doesn't. All I'm saying is that there's alot going on that the casual webmaster or store owner wouldn't know about or understand. I've seen on page optimization alone get people onto the first page of a non-competitive, low volume SERPs. And I've seen people call that 'success' and attribute that to any number of crazy theories. But it really just came down the on page optimization, where every webmaster should start. The fact is that people are attracted to Angela's methods because it sounds too good to be true. And it is. Link development just isn't that easy. Can you imagine how screwed up the Google search results would be if they allowed this to actually be true. Every spam king out there would own every first page of every decent SERP out there. Profile pages can be automatically generated by the tens of millions. Believe me (or not, I don't really care), it's not true. The only way you gain benefit form these profile links is if you actively build links for each one of the profile links you create.
It's only $5 a month and you get the PDFs with instructions. With your way you have to weed out the ones that angela found that are not dofollow and or don't allow links. I'll stick with my subscription.
These should work well. The problem is that it can take a good while for them to be found in G. Thanks OP. Rep+1!
Its waste of time. Most of these sites got spam. the site owners now not allowing profile page crawl or they using nofollow attributes. Why do you spam well known sites?
people who say that Angela's links do not work should atleast try it out and then comment. I have tried out Angela and Paul's links for getting my articles and webpages ranked highly. I am glad to say that I have found a lot of success using just these link building methods. Over time I have diversified to other link building methods like article distribution using UAW, FTS etc, blog commenting, social bookmarking and the like. I recommend the same for other folks. Diversify you link building, but for getting high rankings for moderately competitive to low competition keywords - Angela and Paul's links work really well. They are specially more effective when you want to rank web 2.0 pages fast on Google. I can write an article and submit it to a select web 2.0 pages which I have found are most responsive to these links, then build links to those articles for a couple of days and enjoy top search rankings for those terms. I usually go for terms with keyword phrase competition of 50k or less. But I have even got top rankings for more competitive keywords too using just Angela or Paul or Steve Heron links. Whenever I try to check the backlinks to my articles using yahoo site explorer, it won't show much links. So I never bother with it. What I am concerned is my SERPs. If I see an improvement there, I am happy. Hope this helps clear the confusion a little bit. All in all, I will say their links are not a waste of time if you know how to utilize them properly. They may not be so effective on new domains or for highly competitive keywords. But my above suggestions should help you in utilizing them properly.
As far as what many people have experimented, I think they are only useful to get go articles and ezine articles to get to the first page for long tail keywords.
Well, yeah they definitely bring diversity to the backlink structure of the site. They are more effective in long tail keyword link building.
Untrue! and I don't use Angela's stuff. But I am researching a PR0 site created Jul 2008, that has 11,000 backlinks mainly from crap blogs, sitewides on directory, articles, 328 domains linking in and using basically just anchor text to outrank 4 highly authoritative sites for a very competitive kw (2 word phrase) hardly any on-page SEO. I know you want proof well, it is a micro-niche i will get into so no details there.you just need to know PR has not much to do when BL and anchor text are at work. yes, very hard to explain but the key here is backlinks. if you have been in SEO pro for 10 years you know A does not always equal B. my 1st site was in 2001 but been studying since 1998.
If that site happens to be listed in DMOZ/Google Directory, then it'll be easily on top. Besides, the links you describe here are not that junky, not like the Angela stuff.
This links are basically from high authority sites. The backlink comes from profile page of your account.
say what you want.. but she ranks on page one for Angela. Shes ranking before imdb. im thinking that she is on to something