comments

#1 | rating: 0 | I'd like to rate this comment.
+ Insightful | + Funny | - Useless | - Off-Topic | - Flame | - Vulgar | - Spam
I voted this up without reading the whole thing. When I saw the link replacement strategy I cringed. Not that I care if people do that, it's the amount of work it would take to get it done as compared to the amount of links you could generate in the time you spent with this strategy.

Links are not so important on an individual basis that you'd ever spend this much time getting your competitors dropped and yours added unless you are talking an extremely high PR site, and even then I could have 100 new authoritative links by the time you got that job done.
written by targetedtraffic 539 days ago



#2 | rating: 0 | I'd like to rate this comment.
+ Insightful | + Funny | - Useless | - Off-Topic | - Flame | - Vulgar | - Spam
targetedtraffic - thanks for reading and commenting. This is my entry for the MP SEM scholarship, so keep in mind the intent behind the writing. :)

Honestly, I don't do very much manual link building anymore. However, the tactic that I mentioned doesn't have to be more difficult than manually asking for a link. Rather than simply asking for a link, it's just the additional effort of trying to convince the other site that your site is a better resource to link to than your competitor's.
written by SEOdisco 539 days ago

who plugged this story

tombishop63

SEOdisco

bhartzer

targetedtraffic

irianda

seofeed

version3

mjesales

clickfire