New Technique NOT To Use!

Discussion in 'Search Engine Optimization' started by Joseph.Shivell, Jul 26, 2010.

  1. Joseph.Shivell

    Joseph.Shivell
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Community Leader
    Community Leader

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    697
    I recently saw this ad posted in another forum, and I thought I would let people know, so they can avoid it:

    "One quality back link, such as from a .gov or .edu, is equal to 25 lower quality back links.

    Here are Free Authority Codes to get your quality back links to your website from .gov and .edu websites (as well as high quality .com's as well)."

    What he is offering is a free report that supposedly gives "Authority Codes" that will allow a website owner to get links that will, according to one email ad I received, "move your site 100 positions overnight". I am sure there are members here who would agree, that is not going to happen.
    Although the ad above starts with something that is true, quality backlinks are better than lower quality links, this is most likely NOT a legitimate way to get them. If any of the members of this forum receive or see any ads for "Authority Codes", or any similar offer, I would urge them to ignore these ads.
     
  2. Fergal

    Fergal
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Premium Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    10,575
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Thanks for sharing that with us Joseph. As you say, links from authority and highly ranked sites do help your search engine rankings. Matt Cutts from Google has stated that they don't give any greater ranking to links based on the type of domain they come from, in other words he says that contrary to common belief links from .gov or .edu sites don't rank your site better than links from other domains, all else being equal. He discusses this in the video below, from about 0:58 (the 58th second).

    [YOUTUBE]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UxTmZulcQZ0&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UxTmZulcQZ0&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
     
  3. junglekid

    junglekid
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joseph, have you read that report? If not, I recommend reading it so you don't base your opinion
    upon ads or promotional emails. We all know how hyped-up IM ads and product launches are...:)

    "The Perpetual Traffic Report", the "Authority Codes" report and the "Cherry Picker Software" are
    components of a big product launch happening today.("The Perpetual Traffic Formula", by Ryan Deiss)
    I haven't used the Cherry Picker software but I've read both reports and they do contain good
    information, no black hat or spam or illegitimate methods at all.

    The "Authority Codes" report shows how to build backlinks using blog/site commenting and here's some
    of his recommendations: "Leave a Valuable Blog Comment", "Give Your Opinion, Add Value And Be a Little
    Controversial", " Don’t Use Common “Spam Phrases”, etc.

    And this: " Spammers don’t put much thought into their posts, which is exactly why you should. If you
    want your comment to get attention (IN A GOOD WAY) and stick around for a long, long time, give an
    actual opinion that the blogger and/or moderator would find interesting."

    The information Ryan Deiss is giving away for free is so valuable that more than 2300 comments have
    been posted on his blog over the past three weeks.( Mostly thanks)

    I recommend downloading and reading both reports.
     
  4. Joseph.Shivell

    Joseph.Shivell
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Community Leader
    Community Leader

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    697
    junglekid:

    After reading your post I decided to try downloading the report. Instead of receiving the report, I was sent to an order page for the "Perpetual Traffic Formula". I also did not receive any instructions by email on where or how to download this report, or any others.
    Therefore, based on my experience, I can only conclude that the alleged offer of the free report was nothing more than a ploy by Ryan Deiss to get me to spend $1997 on his product.
    I have since unsubscribed from his mailing list.
     
  5. junglekid

    junglekid
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    3
  6. Joseph.Shivell

    Joseph.Shivell
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Community Leader
    Community Leader

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    697
    junglekid:

    I found the two reports and downloaded them. After reading them, I do have a few concerns. First, from "The Authority Codes", Ryan again makes this claim:

    "Plus, there is the "unwritten law" of .edu (links from schools and Universities) and .gov websites (government links)..."

    As we all now know, the reason why the law is unwritten is because it doesn't exist! According to Matt Cutts of Google, the type of domain doesn't make any difference. It is the quality of the site that matters. That's why Ryan separates the links into the following: 2 .edu or .org links, 4 .com links and 4 .org links. You'll notice that that is only ten links. He claims that's all you need. There's also a problem with that. Sites that are highly ranked under competitive phrases have thousands of links. It would take awhile to get ranked above them with only ten links a month, even high quality ones. Also, if a site that is not highly ranked suddenly starts getting nothing but high quality links, Google is going to get suspicious - even if this technique is not black-hat, it can look a little "iffy".
    Now, let's take a look at the Perpetual Traffic Report. Ryan claims the Google is "Broken", and uses phrases like "how to twist Google's big, hairy arm", and "You Can BEAT Google". Many people have learned the hard way that if you try to beat Google, Google will beat you. If, on the other hand, you feed the beast what it wants, you can tame it.
    He also tells you that he can get 600-1000 links going to a brand-new website - what happened to the ten links he said were all you needed in "The Authority Codes"? Which is it? Actually, he's probably closer to doing what he should with the 600-1000, depending on how he gets them.
    Although he does mention the "black-hat" SEO experts, even Ryan admits that if you think you're going to read his report, generate some links, and be #1 for competitive phrases, "you're out of your freakin' mind". Even I am willing to admit that many of our competitors will take your money and leave you with nothing, which was why the company I work for was created in the first place. Website owners needed someone who has the proper tools and knows how to use them properly.
    To be honest, other than the information about Google, most of the report is things you can learn simply by reading the posts here at BAF. However, anyone who wants to download Ryan's free reports can do so. I have no doubt they are worth every penny you pay for them. I would not, however, recommend paying $1997 for the Perpetual Traffic System.
     
    #6 Joseph.Shivell, Jul 31, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  7. junglekid

    junglekid
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Google will never publicly admit it because it would start a crazy chase for .edu and .gov backlinks.

    BTW, I haven't seen anyone questioning this statement: "SEO experts have known for years that theses links (.edu & .gov) are HIGHLY valued by Google. In fact, most experts agree that Google multiplies their value by as much as 5X over a regular page with the same PR." I'm inclined to believe this unwritten law exists...

    That's the point: usually .edu and .gov websites do have high quality.

    Ryan mentioned it: "Now, 10 links may not sound like much, but when you’re talking QUALITY links like the kind I’m going to show you how to generate in this report...that’s more than enough to DOMINATE the top 10 in most markets." Not in all markets.

    Joseph, it seems you aren't aquainted with Internet Marketers language...they tend to exaggerate(also called "hype up") their claims. Despite the "hipey" language, I think both reports contain good information about organic search traffic and what is needed to generate it. Not so long ago this kind of information would have been sold instead of given away for free.:)

    P.S.: $1997 is a lot of money to spend on a product but as regards Ryan Deiss here's what Frank Kern wrote about him: "...lots of Ryan's stuff is VERY good. In fact, I actually swiped the entire structure of my Mass Control and my List Control trainings from what I learned when I was watching Ryan create products. And Ryan is a member of my primary mastermind group and I regularly call on him for advice."
     
  8. Fergal

    Fergal
    uix_expand uix_collapse
    Premium Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    Messages:
    10,575
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    I'm not referring in particular, to the two people mentioned, but I've become wary of how these gurus recommend and promote each other in general. The fact that most of them include affiliate links in their recommendations, in itself makes me suspicious. You've got to wonder how reliable a recommendation is, when you see that the person making the recommendation is being financially rewarded for it.

    My guess is that if you looked at the top ten most famous IM gurus, you would see that they all recommend each other and get paid for recommending each other. It would take a brave guru to criticise one of the others, because then they would turn on him, stop recommending his product and probably publicise some negative reviews of their work - they could do this without putting their name to the negative review. I say "his" because I'm not aware of any female, top IM gurus.

    These gurus make money by telling others how to make money and by boasting about how much money they make themselves. Their reputation depends on people believing that they make a lot of money and it would not be in their interest to say that they did not make money, by using someone else's product. They remind me a little of people who are famous for being famous - these gurus make money from being famous for making money.

    Another thing that concerns me is that a proportion of the content on these IM programs is focused in encouraging the participant to earn money by promoting the program, which reminds me a little of a pyramid scheme.
     

Share This Page