Web 2.0 Link Building: Still Worth It?

on under Link Building, Myth-Busting.

There was a time, back in the dark ages of 2009, when "web 2.0 SEO" was the next big thing. Interest since then has...waned a bit:

web 2 point 0 seo

What happened?

Well, it was a number of things, but it was mainly Panda. In February of 2011, Google unleashed Panda, which was most likely a machine learning algorithm, trained on a set of manually chosen low quality pages. It identified some of the hidden patterns exhibited by low quality content writers, and it didn't take long for links from places like EzineArticles to become close to useless.

All those "web 2.0 properties," like Squidoo and so on started to look a lot less like viable link building opportunities.

Of course, anybody who was claiming to build links from sites like these for referral traffic and branding was either lying through their teeth or out of touch with reality. The update didn't effect many legitimate marketers, because very few of them were using sites like these. The same goes for any above board SEO agency who steered clear of such grey-hat tactics.

But today, I thought it would be interesting to revisit the state of web 2.0 link building. Does it still work? If so, what does that mean for the rest of us marketers and full-fledged businesses?

There Are At Least a Few Cases Where it Still Works

The question of whether web 2.0 links still work is a difficult one to answer, because very few people who use the tactic are terribly interested in letting anybody else know about it. No agency would want to admit to clients that they spam their sites with links from the empty carcasses of web 2.0 sites, and anybody using it to make money for themselves isn't going to be very interested in letting their competitors know about it.

However, after doing some extended digging, I was able to find two whole case studies recent enough to bother talking about.

Nathan Gotch was able to improve rankings for a niche site by building web 2.o links circa June 2013:

web 2 point 0 link building

About a month and a half of sporadic link building from web 2.0 properties got him to rank for a phrase with 1,300 searches per month. Believe it or not, those links came from spun articles. Ugh.

Kelvon Roy was able to improve his rankings for two keywords with a combined total of 7,300 exact search traffic using web 2.0 a private network links. When I say "improve," though, I mean he ranked himself somewhere on the 6th or 7th page of Google. Better than nothing I guess:

web 2 point 0 link building #2

Now, specific keyword rankings are a very old school metric, and it would be nice if these two reported their traffic instead. (Come on guys, Google does not think in terms of exact keywords anymore. Get with the program.) That said, these case studies demonstrate that building traffic using web 2.0 links might still work occasionally. You can't call me 100 percent convinced on that, though. These could also easily be flukes, considering how many case studies probably went unreported because they never led anywhere.

As a counterpoint, Jed at SEO Pro Tools never saw any improvement in rankings using web 2.0 links, as exhibited by his comment on his own post:

Tom thanks for the comment. I really need to update that post. I got really excited about the Private blog networks for a while. But as I got deeper into setting one up for that case study I started to get disappointed. Here's why. ITS A LOT OF WORK! Since I was trying to do it on the cheap, I was just using high quality spun content. I was rewriting each sentence 3 times, and then going in and spinning in words where they made sense. I was getting around %90 uniqueness and the article was still very readable. It wasn't going to win any literary awards but it was still readable. That took me about +4 hours each and it was painful work. Setting up the Web 2.0 isn't hard but I really wanted to do it right. Setting up the About me's, Contact pages, spreadsheets to keep track of everything took some time but was relatively easy. I used GSA and Wicked Article Creator to build the backlinks to the web 2.0′s. This involved A getting a VPS so I could run GSA 24/7, proxies, captcha service and link indexing service. So even though I was able to get the network set up for free it cost me around $60 a month to build the links. Not including the software. So after all that I expected to see some awesome results. The bad news is that it didn't happen. I saw no results for all of my work. And so I came to this conclusion. Private blog networks can and do work, unfortunately attempting to create and maintain one on a shoestring budget doesn't seem very effective. I think to make it worthwhile you need to have a solid internet marketing tool chest, a good source for cheap content, and its still going to cost you some coin. I learned a lot from setting this up and trying to keep it as low cost as possible. But this is the point of case studies, sometime they work, sometime not.

By the way, I really love the phrase "high quality spun content." It's hilarious.

...Worth it?

Let me just say it. Web 2.0 link building was never worth it.

(Well, it was never worth it assuming you were a legit business. As in, not a site whose business model was to exploit Google loopholes for affiliate money. I know, I'm edging close to No True Scotsman territory here.)

Unless you consider links from, say, Facebook and Twitter to be web 2.0 links, then web 2.0 links never sent any actual referral traffic. In my view, as I've said many times, if you build a link yourself, it had better send (valuable) referral traffic, and not just because that means your links will help your SEO for the long haul. Producing content that nobody is going to see is a wasted opportunity. Building a link that nobody is going to click is a waste of resources. It may help your SEO, temporarily, but it's never going to offer the ROI of a real link that real people click on.

What Does This Mean For Us, Then?

I'd really like to use this as an opportunity to point out how modern SEOs overvalue the huge, authoritative links from major players.

If you're confused and thinking "Wait, didn't you just say you should only build links from sites that will send valuable referral traffic?" you're right, that's what I said.

You should only build links from sites of that nature. We sometimes forget that every once in a while, a web page actually picks up an honest to god natural link, freely given without an outreach email or guest post in sight.

And here's where I need to remind everybody that most of the links on the web are, wait for it, "low quality." Web 2.0 links still do influence rankings because they are one of many kinds of miscellaneous links that make up the majority of the link graph.

Google is not necessarily interested in ranking the sites with the best marketing departments.

A surprising number of SEOs seem to believe that Google actually wants to reward businesses that are good at marketing themselves, but that's not what they're in business for. (Wikipedia doesn't market itself, and they practically own the single word query search results.)

No, Google is interested in ranking web pages that will satisfy searchers, so that searchers will keep coming back and seeing their ads.

This post is a reminder that those random links you pick up from obscure places on the web, the ones that you look down on and think don't have enough "link juice" or "domain authority," those links are actually helping you rank. Assuming you aren't manipulating them unnaturally, they are sending the signal to Google that your site is naturally attracting attention. A site that seems to always pick up authoritative links, without attracting any of these lower quality natural links, is an anomaly. It doesn't look good. It looks promotional. And Google alone can decide whether or not that's a good thing for any specific query.

Remember that.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Groot

    I beg to differ. Web 2.0s and all contextual link building works IF you use RELEVANT and ORGINAL content. Web 2.0s are some of the most authoritative domains on the internet and provide mass link juice if the content is good. Using spun content is garbage SEO and will yield garbage results. I have ranked keywords over 100,000 searches a month using just web 2.0s.

    • Carter Bowles

      I think this blog post was a lot more nuanced than your comment suggests. Of course Web 2.0 links can help you rank. I ended the post on that note, actually. However, if you argue that Web 2.0s are some of the most authoritative domains on the internet, I think we have different definitions for Web 2.0s.

      • Yeah I was just reading this comment and thinking "Huh? Carter basically said they help, but they're not a "strategy". If anything, the take-away is that they're fine from a diversification standpoint, but not going to storm you up to page 1.

      • Groot

        You say "Web 2.0 link building was never worth it."

  • Muito bom

  • Fernanda

    I believe this is still very relevant for goole, but it has to be done with articles relevant to the system seek to improve

    I'm trying this on my website Maquiagem it has shown good results in recent months

  • I have used Web 2.0 links and have noticed a slightly accented result up in the rankings. Do you think it is due to the fact that these links are?

  • I use the tier strategy very much using the web.20 excellent article I really liked it

  • SEO

    very nice article about link building