14 Indexing Techniques Analyzed: A Comprehensive Backlink Study

londonseo

Summary of Backlink Indexing Case Study:

This comprehensive study tested 14 different backlink indexing methods to determine their effectiveness in getting Google to crawl and index web pages. The researchers created a challenging test environment by generating 200 pages of "junk" lorem ipsum content across 15 new domains, deliberately creating low-quality pages without styling, links, or media.

Key findings:

1. Out of 14 indexing methods tested, only 4 triggered visits from Google's bots, and only 3 actually resulted in indexed URLs.

2. The top-performing backlink indexing services were:
   - Indexing Expert: 99.5% indexing rate
   - Omega Indexer: 88.5% indexing rate (noted to be 75% cheaper than Indexing Expert)
   - SpeedLinks VIP: 72.5% indexing rate

3. Surprisingly, most of the tested services (10 out of 14) failed to trigger any visits from Google's bots.

4. Using Google's own tools (PageSpeed, Rich Results, Mobile Friendly) triggered Googlebot visits but resulted in a 0% indexing rate for the test pages.

5. All Googlebot visits came from the mobile crawler.

The study highlights the significant disparity in effectiveness among backlink indexing services, with only a few demonstrating the ability to successfully index low-quality content. This information is valuable for SEO professionals and website owners looking to optimize their backlink indexing strategies.

To read the full case study and get more detailed insights, visit: https://www.searchlogistics.com/learn/seo/link-building/backlink-indexers-test/.

cherub

backlinkaddict said:

I mean who pays an indexing servive to index "junk" pages? For me that like putting water in your car and wondering why it didnt fire the ignition 

I suppose the logic is that if an indexing service can index a 'junk' page, it should be perfectly capable of indexing anything you send it, barring noindex'd pages etc.

This is an extremely old study in any case. I think the Indexing Expert service was kicked off BHW for not living up to standards, and Elitelinkindexer does not accept signups.

londonseo

backlinkaddict said:

Yeah most the indexers dont do much, and I wouldnt expect a good test using "junk" pages - so especially watch that I kid here with his scripts, but giving no results 

This was also older case study too and for indexing Google has been going through very recent changes. That post may have be biased or possiby incentivized also. I did an indexing test not so long ago and of top of those indexers some def do not get any results. There was another I asked the developer if It was ok to do a Honest (where I share results good or bad against his competition) case study and if it was ok to use service and post where people would see in forum and he ask me to please not include his 

Take it for what its worth, but indexing is not so hard with a little know how and should def learn to test them and make sure they are doing what they are suppossed to do. 

Keep in mind though that getting your links crawled and getting your links indexed is different. Sometimes you can keep getting links crawled and Google wont index them. That you can't always blame the service as they did there part. Unless they are promising indexing. Shit links are getting harder and harder to keep in index. While I have some links I build tier one and with no help they index overnight.

Basically the results are worse now then when that post was made.

The researchers created a challenging test environment by generating 200 pages of "junk" lorem ipsum content across 15 new domains, 

To me this does not sound like a challenging test environment, it sounds like a cheap lazy way to test indexing services. Why would Google want these "junk" lorem ipsum (gibersh) pages in the index? Interesting sure, but how would the test look against some aged domains with readable content?

I mean who pays an indexing servive to index "junk" pages? For me that like putting water in your car and wondering why it didnt fire the ignition 

Like @cherub said, the idea is that if junk can get indexed, then good content should not be a problem.

It is a Matthew Woodward case study!