I run an indexing service which has been up and running for just over 3 years now so I'm going to give you my opinion on this matter without seeming bias, take what you will from it.
The best way to pro-actively index your links at the masses is to run them through a service, in the long run, these processed links will be indexed much quicker than if you did not use a service or a method to index them, another alternative would be to run more campaigns at your links to get them indexed then run the junk tier through a service which is just easier and would require less resources on your part.
Trouble is, people say "services don't work" but this isn't a true measurement, every back link is unique, the content used on them is most of the time pure spammed to death spun garbage which would have a tough time to get indexed naturally in this day and age, however if you do use a service and the service achieves a 20% index rate of a pure garbage campaign then that is better than achieving a 1-3% index rate without using an indexing service and that's fact.
I've seen these newer type indexer software that came out recently which is the latest craze it seems but they require Google PVA accounts and also proxies/captcha services which is simply not practical for mass submissions in my eyes, this is my humble opinion without trying to mock anyone here, the costs involved to link submission ratio is just not worth it comparing to the deathbycaptcha credits, SER links aren't really worth the cost in captchas to get them indexed.
Services are supplied for the convenience of the end user, indexing services should be treated as an aid to all SEO's if they are not proactively indexing their own links, take from this post what you will but this is my personal opinion.
@pippil - I've been testing indexing services for the past month or so. I don't feel like anything works well enough to justify its price.
@Tim89 - You lay out some good points. That said, these points aren't very persuasive without numbers behind them. I looked at your sales thread a few weeks back when I was testing different services, and it doesn't get into specifics either. How well is your indexer working these days, and how does it compare to Google pva methods, both in cost and effectiveness? Google pva methods can index "pure spammed to death spun garbage" just fine, so if this isn't possible with your service then the cost of getting decent content should be included in the total cost.
Hey, I was not picking a fight with anyone or any service/tool, just gave my opinion.
In terms of worth, let's just say, captcha costs alone, it'll cost a person $20.85 to index or "process" 15,000 urls whereas a service would charge around $10-$16 for the same amount of usage, services are self hosted and part of the point in out sourcing your indexing or pinging/crawling.
Taking this up a notch, you want numbers? A service can provide 1,000,0000 credits for under $50,00 a month whereas it'll cost a user around $1,400 to process the same amount of URLs in captchas alone, you can't really justify that cost, not even if you were to write the captcha costs off as expenses, that's just a silly amount of money to pay to get your "pure spammed to death garbage" links indexed.
If someone picks up a plan for 1 million credits under $50 and they achieve an overall indexing rate of lets just say 30%, the same amount of links being indexed (30% 1,000,0000 credits = 300,000) using the Google Pva method would cost a person around $400 in captchas (300,000 / 1,000 = 300 x $1.39 = $417) and this is ofcourse working it out on the assuption of a 30% index rate for a cost of $50 which is very achievable within a month, doesn't matter how you look at it, 30% of 1,000,000 is the same figure as 300,000 links either way, If I were on a budget, I know what I'd rather spend per month, let me state the obvious, *cough* $50
Content cost does not outweigh captcha cost if you were to choose that route. As I said in my previous post, I don't want to pick fights on this forum, I just state the obvious and try to help people out but I thought this stuff I mentioned above was obvious, I've held my tongue for quite some time on my thoughts about these new softwares' but every month as least once a month I see a thread like this pop up asking the same question over and over about indexing.
@Tim89 - I didn't think either of us were picking a fight. I have no affiliation with any indexing service and an interest in sharing information. Your posts are generally some of the best on the forum, so I hoped you could get more specific.
Anyway, this second post was much better. I happen to agree with you that the Google pva method isn't cost effective for heavy SER use. I tested it for about a month, and it's hard / expensive to scale. At the 15,000 links per month level it's open to debate, though I still don't think it's worth it.
These threads do pop up a lot. I'm not currently doing anything to index my links beyond building a junk tier to my contextuals. It would be nice to find something more effective, but so far I haven't.
Comments
The best way to pro-actively index your links at the masses is to run them through a service, in the long run, these processed links will be indexed much quicker than if you did not use a service or a method to index them, another alternative would be to run more campaigns at your links to get them indexed then run the junk tier through a service which is just easier and would require less resources on your part.
Trouble is, people say "services don't work" but this isn't a true measurement, every back link is unique, the content used on them is most of the time pure spammed to death spun garbage which would have a tough time to get indexed naturally in this day and age, however if you do use a service and the service achieves a 20% index rate of a pure garbage campaign then that is better than achieving a 1-3% index rate without using an indexing service and that's fact.
I've seen these newer type indexer software that came out recently which is the latest craze it seems but they require Google PVA accounts and also proxies/captcha services which is simply not practical for mass submissions in my eyes, this is my humble opinion without trying to mock anyone here, the costs involved to link submission ratio is just not worth it comparing to the deathbycaptcha credits, SER links aren't really worth the cost in captchas to get them indexed.
Services are supplied for the convenience of the end user, indexing services should be treated as an aid to all SEO's if they are not proactively indexing their own links, take from this post what you will but this is my personal opinion.
@Tim89 - You lay out some good points. That said, these points aren't very persuasive without numbers behind them. I looked at your sales thread a few weeks back when I was testing different services, and it doesn't get into specifics either. How well is your indexer working these days, and how does it compare to Google pva methods, both in cost and effectiveness? Google pva methods can index "pure spammed to death spun garbage" just fine, so if this isn't possible with your service then the cost of getting decent content should be included in the total cost.
In terms of worth, let's just say, captcha costs alone, it'll cost a person $20.85 to index or "process" 15,000 urls whereas a service would charge around $10-$16 for the same amount of usage, services are self hosted and part of the point in out sourcing your indexing or pinging/crawling.
Taking this up a notch, you want numbers? A service can provide 1,000,0000 credits for under $50,00 a month whereas it'll cost a user around $1,400 to process the same amount of URLs in captchas alone, you can't really justify that cost, not even if you were to write the captcha costs off as expenses, that's just a silly amount of money to pay to get your "pure spammed to death garbage" links indexed.
If someone picks up a plan for 1 million credits under $50 and they achieve an overall indexing rate of lets just say 30%, the same amount of links being indexed (30% 1,000,0000 credits = 300,000) using the Google Pva method would cost a person around $400 in captchas (300,000 / 1,000 = 300 x $1.39 = $417) and this is ofcourse working it out on the assuption of a 30% index rate for a cost of $50 which is very achievable within a month, doesn't matter how you look at it, 30% of 1,000,000 is the same figure as 300,000 links either way, If I were on a budget, I know what I'd rather spend per month, let me state the obvious, *cough* $50
Content cost does not outweigh captcha cost if you were to choose that route. As I said in my previous post, I don't want to pick fights on this forum, I just state the obvious and try to help people out but I thought this stuff I mentioned above was obvious, I've held my tongue for quite some time on my thoughts about these new softwares' but every month as least once a month I see a thread like this pop up asking the same question over and over about indexing.
Anyway, this second post was much better. I happen to agree with you that the Google pva method isn't cost effective for heavy SER use. I tested it for about a month, and it's hard / expensive to scale. At the 15,000 links per month level it's open to debate, though I still don't think it's worth it.
These threads do pop up a lot. I'm not currently doing anything to index my links beyond building a junk tier to my contextuals. It would be nice to find something more effective, but so far I haven't.