The most effective link building for ranking pages

[dhigler]

"What's the best link building strategy?"

I see this question come up often, naturally.

I have tried many temporarily successful link building techniques for ranking pages, but one method that stands out as better (and much more long term) than the rest is joining a well run private blog network.

A private blog network in laymens terms is a group of 20 (an arbitrary number chosen for the sake of simplicity) websites owned by the same hidden entity.

While this might not seem significant at first, it's the details of the sites in the network and the way that network is set up and managed that makes the difference and I'll get to what constitutes a well optimized network in a minute.

If you join such a network, you essentially pay a monthly fee to get one way contextual anchor text links placed on sites that have authority in the eyes of Google. These links in theory will give you a boost in the rankings for the keywords you specify.

Some networks will make your links permanent even after you leave, some networks are 'rentals' which means you lose the links if you cancel your subscription.

While I'm not an expert in the way of the best private blog networks, the following criteria should be considered when considering joining a PBN:

1) The strength of the PR for each site in the network.

• A well run network of sites will have very strong back link structures in place for each site in the network. If the owners of the sites have done their homework on the sites they have purchased for the network, algorithmic updates won't matter much and the Page Rank will be strong enough to survive updates.

2) The number of outbound links each site has.

• I would look for a network that keeps it's OBL's under 40. Even that seems like a lot these days, but you should get the point here. The less links, the more powerful the juice.

3) Are reports given?

• I am okay with not receiving reports on the work being done behind the scenes. It is much too easy to get sites flagged, de-indexed, etc. when each link is live for the world to see. Sure, serious reverse engineering can disclose what some try very hard to keep 'private', but I would look for a network that doesn't readily give away the sites in the network. I can tell very well if the money I am paying monthly to a network is working because my rankings will increase to a point that satisfies me and justifies the recurring payment.

4) Are the sites hosted on separate C Class IP's?

• The keyword in private blog networks is 'private'. And by private I don't just mean hidden from you and I, but hidden from Google. Ideally, each site in the network is hosted independently of the other sites in the network. If there was any inkling that the network of sites was related, link diversity would vanish along with the total value of the network itself. I'm no expert here, this is common sense application as I see it. IP diversity is essential.

5) The content of the sites in the network

• This goes back to why the network owner bought the site for the network in the first place or at least it should. If the content was good enough, the back links that are already pointing to the site should have been strong enough to give the pages the high PR they currently have. Good content makes a difference for PR purposes.

6) Minimum PR

• Each site should have a minimum of 3 as their homepage Page Rank. That's my personal preference and it seems to do me well. If a network has a minimum of PR4, I'll inquire even further.

Finding good private blog network owners isn't easy, but it isn't hard either. The good network owners have their slots filled up quickly. Search well known forums, use appropriate search terms when seeking out the information you desire and you'll find what you are looking for.

The network owner and their network running acumen really make a difference in the total value of the PBN.

As for the appropriate amount of money to spend on a monthly subscription, that's is for you to decide. Having had enough #1 rankings to know exactly what some of my main keywords are worth, I can easily justify price X for a network when position Y will net me price Z.

I hope those who own such networks that come across this post will tidy it up and add value to the discussion. I am eager to learn much more on the topic myself since I'd like to own my own network eventually. I only know that this link building method has given me the most substantial increases in SERP positioning and I am pleased with the results.

[Kay]

I've thanked you because you've raised the subject for discussion rather than because I agree with your advice. Actually I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion one way or t'other.

I've heard of private networks before, but almost always in the context of people creating their own private networks by setting up a number of sites with various different hosts. I've also heard of people doing hosting swaps in an attempt to increase link diversity. But until now I was unaware that you could buy into this kind of thing. Of course, I should have realised that if there's some way to game G, then people will be selling the means to do it.

Whilst what you're suggesting sounds way more sophisticated than ye olde link farms, is it not just an updated version of the same concept? If it is, then G will catch on to it sooner or later. I understand that it's set up so G doesn't see it, or at least their bots won't. But G doesn't like people trying to game them so there's nothing stopping them doing manual reviews to put an end to this. Personally, it's not something I would want to risk.

[dhigler]

I think Google breeds all sorts of synthetic engineering.

When you have thousands of people competing for just ten spots in any given certain search result, people tend to get, well, creative.

I'm not sure how the link farms were operated, but I feel like a PBN that is non-spam filled, has content that adds value to the reader, and has been rewarded with higher PR in the past for it's link structure is better than most tactics. It is certainly a tactic, but it's an effective one when used correctly.

We'd get off topic discussing a business model reliant solely on search engine rankings and the intelligence of such a business so I am really hoping some folks with experience running a private network for their own personal use and more can shed some more light here.

[JJMcClure]

Personally, it's not something I would want to risk.

What do you think the risk is?

[Kay]

What do you think the risk is?

The risk is doing anything to upset G when they pay nearly all your bills. Whatever it is that works to game them now probably won't work in the longer term so I think it's a risky strategy to pursue.

[gzed]

These networks are usually started through buying expiring domains with PR. Any site in the network ends up getting random articles coming in on all types of topics ( a forex article, then a toe nail fungus article ...) on top of the already random domain name ... it's a miracle some of these sites still get indexed. But dhigler is right - if the network has good moderation of incoming posts, it can add value to the visitor and be a worthwhile backlink. The problem is that this type of conscientiousness is in short supply among network owners.

[JJMcClure]

The risk is doing anything to upset G when they pay nearly all your bills. Whatever it is that works to game them now probably won't work in the longer term so I think it's a risky strategy to pursue.

There's very little risk to you otherwise I could join a few of those networks and sink one of your sites. It's 'almost' impossible to hurt a competitor, so the reverse applies.

If a site is detected selling links, it'll get penalised and you'll have wasted your money but the sites the links point to are very unlikely to.

[tke71709]

The risk is doing anything to upset G when they pay nearly all your bills. Whatever it is that works to game them now probably won't work in the longer term so I think it's a risky strategy to pursue.

It may not work in the long term but it certainly could be used to "enhance" the white hat SEO that you do. It shouldn't be able to directly harm you as Google is not fond of punishing sites for activities that they do not directly control (e.g. inbound links). Worst case scenario should be that the links do not pass any PR to your sites once they are devalued and you have to rely on your hard work getting backlinks and the such.

Backlinks and indicators of trust are almost logorithmic in nature, it's a lot easier to get them when you already have them so if you need a little black hat love to get started then I say go for it.

With that said, OP, you state

I would look for a network that keeps it's OBL's under 40. Even that seems like a lot these days, but you should get the point here. The less links, the more powerful the juice.

I would think that any well diversified content site out there would link out to tons of other sites (wikipedia, twitter, other authority sites in the niche). Do you think that 40 might be a little low, at least as far as removing a potential footprint for Google to look for?

[dhigler]

Tke,

I have yet to see a case where sites (in networks I subscribe to) are linking out to authority sites. They shouldn't have to if their PR's are strong enough.

As for the footprint, as long as the sites don't interlink to each other, and the IP's are all diverse, etc I'm not smart enough to see how there could be a footprint in a network that has unique content on a per site basis and may even require you to use different URL's and different keywords.

Maybe this is why the good ones are so powerful and long lasting?

[grynge]

I have yet to see a case where sites (in networks I subscribe to) are linking out to authority sites. They shouldn't have to if their PR's are strong enough.

The reason to link to authority sites in the field is to show a natural linking process rather than a paid process, if all links were to scammy meso sites without linking to an authority site it would be easy for the SE's to work out which were paid links.