One of the tactics to get high paying ads on our blogs or sites is to use only one ad format, the 300x250 block. You put two of these blocks between the title of the post/article, and the content.
But, can this be improved?.
Yes, you could write content with keywords related to high pay, moving niches. You would get more money for a hosting related site, that for an origami related one.
That's nice. However, I want more money for click?
AdSense game is a one shot game. Think of this. A user enters your site, read your content, find an AdSense ad and click it. If you obey AdSense term of services, then you have one money click, one shot.
I need this only click to produce for me the more money I can get from it. I choose the right ad format, I place it in the right place, I select the right money making content. What else I can do?.
There is a way you can mess inside the ads which appears in your adsense blocks. Click here to keep reading One Shot for High paying AdSense Ads
The story of Biff
Biff writes some unique, great content!
Biff promotes the page with this content in hopes that someone reads it and references the content somehow on a webpage. The way we say 'Hey, thanks for the content!' on the internet nowadays is a backlink - At least that's what Google thinks.
It happens.
Great, there is a willing webmaster looking to reference Biff's content on one or maybe more of their own pages! But Biff forgot to optimize his content properly with named anchor tags - so this webmaster is forced to reference Biffs entire page instead of the specific content via an achor. What's worse is that the page referencing Biffs content has none of the keywords that Biff wrote in his content, in fact it's totally unrelated.
What just happend here?
Well, Biff got some backlinks and will be awarded PageRank, but the webmaster could've passed alot more linkjuice and relevancy to Biffs page if the content was referenced directly, instead of just being a small part of the entire page. Also, the backlink doesn't come from a page with any of Biffs keywords. Biff is going to see an increase in PageRank from the Google Monster, but he shalt not be rewarded for 'relevancy' the real Holy Grail of SEO. It's a combination of relevancy and PageRank that dictates the order in which pages come up in the search results.
Biff properly optimized his content with named anchors and promoted it through more niche specific networks.
Another webmaster referenced Biffs content, on a page with even higher pagerank than the first! The only problem is, they referenced the article by writing 'I read this article here' and there was no relevant surrounding text with any of the same keywords in Biffs article - the minion search spiders couldn't really understand what was going on and thus passed little relevancy to Biffs article in the eyes of Lord Google who still awarded plenty of PageRank to Biff for the backlink. It looks like Biff just can't get a break today in terms of relevancy.
Finally - Biff gets a properly anchored linkback from a webmaster with relevant surrounding and achor text! The backlink was also from a page on the same subject that Biffs content was about, they had more than 3 common keywords! The backlink was also the first link referenced in the article so it had great link order!
Then the Google Monster came to Biff and awarded his page with some relevancy for his keywords. Amen.
Biff promotes the page with this content in hopes that someone reads it and references the content somehow on a webpage. The way we say 'Hey, thanks for the content!' on the internet nowadays is a backlink - At least that's what Google thinks.
It happens.
Great, there is a willing webmaster looking to reference Biff's content on one or maybe more of their own pages! But Biff forgot to optimize his content properly with named anchor tags - so this webmaster is forced to reference Biffs entire page instead of the specific content via an achor. What's worse is that the page referencing Biffs content has none of the keywords that Biff wrote in his content, in fact it's totally unrelated.
What just happend here?
Well, Biff got some backlinks and will be awarded PageRank, but the webmaster could've passed alot more linkjuice and relevancy to Biffs page if the content was referenced directly, instead of just being a small part of the entire page. Also, the backlink doesn't come from a page with any of Biffs keywords. Biff is going to see an increase in PageRank from the Google Monster, but he shalt not be rewarded for 'relevancy' the real Holy Grail of SEO. It's a combination of relevancy and PageRank that dictates the order in which pages come up in the search results.
Biff properly optimized his content with named anchors and promoted it through more niche specific networks.
Another webmaster referenced Biffs content, on a page with even higher pagerank than the first! The only problem is, they referenced the article by writing 'I read this article here' and there was no relevant surrounding text with any of the same keywords in Biffs article - the minion search spiders couldn't really understand what was going on and thus passed little relevancy to Biffs article in the eyes of Lord Google who still awarded plenty of PageRank to Biff for the backlink. It looks like Biff just can't get a break today in terms of relevancy.
Finally - Biff gets a properly anchored linkback from a webmaster with relevant surrounding and achor text! The backlink was also from a page on the same subject that Biffs content was about, they had more than 3 common keywords! The backlink was also the first link referenced in the article so it had great link order!
Then the Google Monster came to Biff and awarded his page with some relevancy for his keywords. Amen.
Generate Online Traffic Using Blog Link Building Techniques
Below is a linking strategy for a blog farm that many blackhatters use. This current diagram is for 3x3 matrix. The same thing can be scaled to any length.
Pros :
1. simple but beautiful, not sure if it is effective
2. Can be scaled to any size of blog farm
Cons:
1. Each node has same number of incoming & outgoing links. The big G might detect the footprints.
2. The link structure completes loops. Though each of the links is a one sided link, but the loop is complete at 4/5 level. Big G might very well detect it. He is not all that stupid.
Let's have a close look to this graph. Here is the problem with this method that you outline with this graph:
If we're reading it correctly, while it is absolutely multi-dimensional, it does not exhibit any where near enough complexity to avoid even the simplest detection algorithms. It also assumes, potentially based on an over-simplification that is entirely my fault for introducing, that weight is evenly distributed at all nodes and that this distribution is temporally linear. It is not.
In fact, the even distribution assumes "perfect conditions," which never occur in the wild. Also, weight is not distributed on these networks in a way where a node that received a .5 weight, would then distribute a weight of 1.5 if it only had 2 links. The fact of the matter is that on the majority of the large network only rarely will we see node connections (edges) that distribute weight greater than 1.
Since PageRank relies on a similar algorithm, presumably this is why an overwhelming number of sites have a PageRank of only 1. This is also why, if we disregard quality, there is no direct correlation between the number of links and the ranking of a page (an old SEO myth.) Even the original PageRank algorithm was far more rich and complex than that.
Read the complete document with the graphs at Scribd - Generate Online Traffic Using Blog Link Building Techniques
Pros :
1. simple but beautiful, not sure if it is effective
2. Can be scaled to any size of blog farm
Cons:
1. Each node has same number of incoming & outgoing links. The big G might detect the footprints.
2. The link structure completes loops. Though each of the links is a one sided link, but the loop is complete at 4/5 level. Big G might very well detect it. He is not all that stupid.
Let's have a close look to this graph. Here is the problem with this method that you outline with this graph:
If we're reading it correctly, while it is absolutely multi-dimensional, it does not exhibit any where near enough complexity to avoid even the simplest detection algorithms. It also assumes, potentially based on an over-simplification that is entirely my fault for introducing, that weight is evenly distributed at all nodes and that this distribution is temporally linear. It is not.
In fact, the even distribution assumes "perfect conditions," which never occur in the wild. Also, weight is not distributed on these networks in a way where a node that received a .5 weight, would then distribute a weight of 1.5 if it only had 2 links. The fact of the matter is that on the majority of the large network only rarely will we see node connections (edges) that distribute weight greater than 1.
Since PageRank relies on a similar algorithm, presumably this is why an overwhelming number of sites have a PageRank of only 1. This is also why, if we disregard quality, there is no direct correlation between the number of links and the ranking of a page (an old SEO myth.) Even the original PageRank algorithm was far more rich and complex than that.
Read the complete document with the graphs at Scribd - Generate Online Traffic Using Blog Link Building Techniques
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
