^ They do that for non-verifed PayPal accounts I think.
.io are $75 a year but it's EMD so maybe worth the cost.
GOdaddy + A coupon for domains isn't much more expensive than CrazyDomains anyway.
@spunko2010@davbel Churn and burns are really catching the eyes these days. However I always had one question. I'm not the great LPM guy and hardly do around anywhere between 12-25K submissions and around 2K verifieds a day. So around 10-12 LPM. Would it work here in my case? What are your LPM (to both)?
@Pratik I don't really take note of LpM. I aim for about 500-1000 a day for each T1 and 2500 a day for T2. This works really well me for after about 10 days.
spunko2010Pratik I am running one right now. In fact it is time for an update.
I have made some changes from the original SPAM project settings previously discussed. I split the contextual (T1) and non contextual links (T1A) into two projects instead of running them in one. Additionally, the non contextual links are tiered (T!A) instead of apmming directly to the money site. I did this to hopefully sustain the web property without an immediate penalty for the desired 60-90 days. I felt that spammingit directly with non contextual links was a waste of resources considering the goal.
Don't get me wrong... it is still a churn and burn. I have it wide open now for a small website with 22 URLs:
@gooner yes until the next update. It can vary day by day a lot, but I can count the number of times on my hand that I've been slapped down into oblivion. Normally just slips down 1-3 ranks when I stop the spamming.
By my own calculations the next Google algorithm update will fall around mid February. I fully expect to be on the brink of suicide at that point
Just finished reading the thread and wanted to jump in on this. It's great to be able to share information on this subject.
About a month and a week ago I tried letting GSA Ser go crazy on a blogspot with only 300 words of content. I targeted and tracked only a keyword with 880 monthly searches as an experiment. When I started ranking for this keyword, I tried tracking some other keywords which I had used as LSI, and ot my surprise I was ranking in the middle of the first page for both these keywords with 15k and 27k searches/month.
I ranked on first page after a week of spamming and after 2-3 weeks I was dancing around #1-#4 on all keywords. Now I'm at #1 for all 3 keywords which I am tracking. It might be the fact that I used blogspot or that my blog had been sitting for about a month without any backlinking done to it that I ranked. Also I had a LpM of 200-250 with only this project running, which also might be a reason for my results.
Also I should mention that the competition for my keywords are somewhere around low and maybe higher than that. It's quite an subjective value to measure.
Anyways I'll be split-testing 7 different ranking methods soon on the same 40k keyword to try replicating my results. It'd definitely be great to keep the discussion about churning and burning going.
@Hunar - I also noticed something on December 17th.
Three of the main keywords that one of my sites was ranking for completely disappeared from the index for several days, and then subsequently reappeared at better positions than before. - They were all mid page 1 in the SERPs, and the site was ranked using standard tiered link building tactics.
Incidentally, the 2 churn and burn sites that I ranked back in September are still going strong, and were'nt affected at all.
@judderman - Knowing Google it wouldn't surprise me if it was, although I was wiped out for B2B service based terms, which are generally pretty quiet around xmas anyway.
I also have another site targeting exactly the same terms (both are on page 1) and it wasn't touched - Maybe I just got caught in the cross fire, who knows?
I read a lot of People got hit with Something Dec 17th. I personally didn't see any changes, but you can tell there was deff something that they did. I'm hoping that was the update lol only if I was that lucky.
There is a great website to check for G algorithm changes http://algoroo.com/ - on Dec 17th there was second biggest change in 2013 - some of my websites got hit
If google said there was no update on Dec 17th then it means there was.
In all seriousness wasnt this the time they dropped authorship images? Maybe that affected CTR.
What is the story on churning and burning and IPs? if you are doing a churn and burn, if you have other sites on the same IP will google catch on and kill those sites too?
and if so, how to get around this using the same server.
@tsaimllc - I wouldn't worry about separate hosting unless you plan to build a blog network. Just register the domains privately (or under false names) and you should be good.
@tsaimllc as @2Tak2 says then I don't think you should worry about it. As far as I'm aware then companies who provide shared hosting will put lots of costumers on the same ip, and there would be a lot of angry people as people would get slapped left and right. However you might think about google products and whois info that can connect your sites together.
Call me paranoid, but for all of my sites, I use different registration data, separate DNS and different C blocks...because you never know when a churn and burn may become something of great value, and then you are left wondering.... if
What did yuy guys decide was the best % for keywords for churn and burn... I am testing with 50% anchor text and 25% generic 25%domain, but with C&B wondering if I should do all anchor or anchor/url, what do you think?
50% domain works best for me. any keyword youre targeting for around 10-25% (totalling to 40%) then i add like shitloads of longtails in the remaining 10%
@tsaimllc all anchor text? I never heard of anything like that working since the collapse of Build My Rank and similar services. I don't believe that works any longer, unless someone wants to prove otherwise.
There is no best % for keyword ratio, so long as you keep the % of the anchor text you want to rank for below whatever may trigger the algorithm to consider your backlink profile over-optimization.
You don't need a sizable percentage of naked url backlinks either. You can use them if you want to dilute the number of exact keyword anchor text backlinks, but naked urls are not a noticeable requirement. I have read someone's report that revealed a lot of the big players in very competitive niches barely have any naked urls pointing to their site. If they do, it is certainly not as big as 25%. Like I said, it helps to dliute the backlinks for the anchor text you want to rank for, but don't think it needs to be a big part of your profile.
The anchor text backlink % for the keyword you want to rank for can be as small as 5% or even less, so long as they are high-powered (and, of course, if the link appears on a page with little other external links).
@tsaimllc was your comment directed at me? What I wrote above had nothing to do with avoiding the "burn" in churn and burn.
As one choice you suggested all anchor text for your backlink. I said I believe that method no longer works, though would be open to it if someone could prove me wrong. That would instantly trigger something in the algorithm and you wouldn't rise in the first place to see a burn--you're burned from the beginning. I no longer see this proposed by those who use the blackest of black hats. They always suggest diluting the anchor text.
If your remark is about my proposal of 5% or even less for the anchor text, that was to illustrate that the ratio doesn't have to be a huge portion of your backlink profile. You just need to have enough high-powered backlinks to shoot you to the top of the rankings without signaling to the algorithm that you're up to no good.
For example, if I had 10,000 backlinks and 1% (100 of them) were high PR and the other 99% were miscellaneous/generic phrases, I could rank, depending on the competition. Why? Because I have high-powered backlinks, and my backlink profile is not overoptimized.
You asked what was the best %. There isn't a best percentage. Make them anchor backlinks diluted enough and make them high powered.
Good discussion. I think what he was saying that it doesn't matter if they crash and burn as that approach is geared for a fast up and down.
Although I lean heavily toward @Squidward 's approach, I am still seeing people do the heavy anchor deal and winning. The problem is that it doesn't seem to work consistently.
On the naked anchor deal, I have a healthy 25% and don't see that as a problem at all - I looked at my competition. What I am doing differently now is branding to occupy a nice chunk of the pie. On primary anchors, I'm at 1%. That's my safe play. On the faster stuff, I am at 60% primary anchors, and 30% secondary.It's all in testing. The environment is much different than it was 6 months ago. But we still need to check on things - never assume. Knowing whether it works well now is what matters. I'm seeing some results, but they are very inconsistent. It seems to be niche related, but there's no way of knowing the algorithm.
I didn't realize people can get away with 60% anchor—that's good to know. As for the naked url, I didn't mean to suggest it is an issue. I just wanted to debunk the myth that a considerable amount of your backlinks need to be naked urls. That's why I brought up what someone noticed regarding the backlink profiles of heavy big players in competitive niches—they hardly had naked urls as backlinks. They serve the same purpose as "click here" as an anchor text—to dilute.
My concern is that people get so wrapped up in formulas, and believe me I should know. I guess the phrase "not seeing the forest for the trees" is the problem. There isn't a magic formula. People have applied one formula of anchor ratios and have been successful with one site, but failed at it when duplicating those efforts for another site (which is what @Ron said). I can't explain why.
@Tsaimllc if you want to do 100% anchor text, go ahead. I just assumed those days are long gone. I'd be more than happy for someone to show me otherwise. Like I said, those who practice very black hat, even for churn and burn, say to dilute.
Comments
Three of the main keywords that one of my sites was ranking for completely disappeared from the index for several days, and then subsequently reappeared at better positions than before. - They were all mid page 1 in the SERPs, and the site was ranked using standard tiered link building tactics.
Incidentally, the 2 churn and burn sites that I ranked back in September are still going strong, and were'nt affected at all.
I also have another site targeting exactly the same terms (both are on page 1) and it wasn't touched - Maybe I just got caught in the cross fire, who knows?
and if so, how to get around this using the same server.
@tsaimllc all anchor text? I never heard of anything like that working since the collapse of Build My Rank and similar services. I don't believe that works any longer, unless someone wants to prove otherwise.
There is no best % for keyword ratio, so long as you keep the % of the anchor text you want to rank for below whatever may trigger the algorithm to consider your backlink profile over-optimization.
You don't need a sizable percentage of naked url backlinks either. You can use them if you want to dilute the number of exact keyword anchor text backlinks, but naked urls are not a noticeable requirement. I have read someone's report that revealed a lot of the big players in very competitive niches barely have any naked urls pointing to their site. If they do, it is certainly not as big as 25%. Like I said, it helps to dliute the backlinks for the anchor text you want to rank for, but don't think it needs to be a big part of your profile.
The anchor text backlink % for the keyword you want to rank for can be as small as 5% or even less, so long as they are high-powered (and, of course, if the link appears on a page with little other external links).
@tsaimllc was your comment directed at me? What I wrote above had nothing to do with avoiding the "burn" in churn and burn.
As one choice you suggested all anchor text for your backlink. I said I believe that method no longer works, though would be open to it if someone could prove me wrong. That would instantly trigger something in the algorithm and you wouldn't rise in the first place to see a burn--you're burned from the beginning. I no longer see this proposed by those who use the blackest of black hats. They always suggest diluting the anchor text.
If your remark is about my proposal of 5% or even less for the anchor text, that was to illustrate that the ratio doesn't have to be a huge portion of your backlink profile. You just need to have enough high-powered backlinks to shoot you to the top of the rankings without signaling to the algorithm that you're up to no good.
For example, if I had 10,000 backlinks and 1% (100 of them) were high PR and the other 99% were miscellaneous/generic phrases, I could rank, depending on the competition. Why? Because I have high-powered backlinks, and my backlink profile is not overoptimized.
You asked what was the best %. There isn't a best percentage. Make them anchor backlinks diluted enough and make them high powered.