[4morereferrals]

There is a guy, which name I don’t want to mention, that is creating hundreds of profiles every day for paying customers, and he said himself that he uses Paul’s and Angela’s banklink’s packages to create these profiles.

Why keep it a secret - thats fornicated!

Redistributing and using others "products" as if they were your own and reselling it to others causing your sales to plummet and your paying customers results to suffer is so RANK Ameture and Bush League it makes me want to vomit.

Thats one of the things the little blackhat scambags dont realize or care about ... its one thing to get someones products without paying, but when you totally screw up someones business and the people who did pay for it [ and their own stupid asses ], and cause refund requests that harm the product developer ... its not just BlackHat and scamming a freebie ... thats just SHIT-Hat.

Scamming a freebie is one thing ... ruining peoples businesses is another ... and sad part is - most of these shit-hatters are right here on this forum everyday - pretending to be trustworthy - integrous Warriors.

You know who you are too. One word ... KARMA

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Redistributing and using others "products" as if they were your own and reselling it to others causing your sales to plummet and your paying customers results to suffer is so RANK Ameture and Bush League it makes me want to vomit.

Actually, if what the person is doing is as described in the post in this thread, then he's not misusing Angela's packets. After seeing the packets my teen daughter thought she'd be interested in doing the backlinking "grunt work" for people and so I inquired directly with Angela, who said that it wouldn't be necessary to buy a packet for each of the backlinking customers my daughter would hopefully acquire, simply pay for her own packet and then use the info therein to provide her backlinking services.

As it turns out, she has decided against the backlinking business using Angela's packets because of concerns about killing the golden goose. That effect is already being seen.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Don't forget that the packets consist of 30 FRESH, new sites every month; a large percentage of these sites remain good. Not ALL webmasters mind a surge of traffic or even people creating profiles with links in them (I have hard evidence that links do NOT "bleed out" Page Rank like some people say); a good portion of the sites either give you a WYSIWYG editor or tell you which HTML tags you can use, including the <a> tag, which they know will create an anchor text link.

In the end, all of this is still some people grumbling about a few sites here and there that remove the capability to get a link and are not appreciating the majority of sites that remain good. Except for the one months' packet that contained quite a few "comment" sites that the spammers ruined, most of the sites in ALL of the packets are still usable today. Even this month's packet.

After all, think about it...unless they are linking to a porn or gambling site, how is a person who would be considered a "spammer" on a comment style site and who got the packet for free going to "spam" these types of sites? His "Forex trading" link is no different than your "Real Estate" link, is it?

Blog commenting has been used for backlinks for just about as long as blogs have been on the Internet. And just about every blogger can tell you, there is a HUGE amount of spam that he/she deals with every day. And yet, blog commenting is still humming along just fine, too. It hasn't "died" and there's no evidence that Google "devalues" blog comments as backlinks (people say a lot of things they don't have any evidence for).

[halfpoint]

It's inevitable that some of the sites are going to disallow links. But so what? There are thousands of high PR websites you can get links from and there are many more being created.

As discussed above, the main problem with these packets is that everyone is getting them at the same time which is going to send off alarm bells for the webmasters when hundreds of people are signing up to their site at once.

What has worked best for me in regards to this is collating a big list of all of Angela's and Paul's packets in excel and just using sites at random when I want to create backlinks.

By doing this, I'm able to filter out the sites that no longer allow links and also it ensures that I'm never using the same sites that everybody else is using at that time period so my links are more likely to stick around.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

lol...

The whole conversation is truly comical.

It's because of the "blach-hatters" and thieves...

It's because sites change...

NOPE...

It's because everyone that is using these packets at least in a small way is a "spammer". How many people are getting this packet now? At a minimum it is 500, plus you have at least one person running a WSO creating a ton of profiles to place links off of Angelas packet and other packets....

Guess what folks...There are not very many if any of these sites that want you showing up just to put your link on them. The fact that hundreds of people are doing it at the same time is probably definitely raising a flag.

For the ones that will reply with "I'm not spamming" I'll ask you to please tell me what you are adding to these sites that would make it worth them to keep your links active or look at you as a contributing member to their site.

With all that being said, I use these types of links too...and am willing to accept and admit that some of my link building strategies are a little "spammy" while others are outright disgusting.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

For the ones that will reply with "I'm not spamming" I'll ask you to please tell me what you are adding to these sites that would make it worth them to keep your links active or look at you as a contributing member to their site.

Do these sites require ongoing active participation in order to have a profile? I would say that unless a site specifies that you CAN'T have a profile without actively participating, then by setting up one profile on the site you're not doing anything that comes close to the definition of SPAM.

Now if you set up a hundred profiles, that's something else entirely.

[Joe118]

Thanks Jeremy Kelsall for pointing out the emporer has no clothes

[John Sullivan]

I am a member of Angelas, Pauls and Steves linking WSOs. I have noticed that even after a week there are many sites that you can't submit to anymore which is a little disappointing.
I know that both Angela and Paul work in advance of a couple of months I believe so I don't know the problem is too many people spamming these sites or they have been sold everywhere.
I could understand after a month or two but after only a week it is a shame that so many don't accept sign ups or links. I know that Angela and Paul are trying to get to the bottom of this stealing of links.
Let's hope something is resolved soon.


John

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Do these sites require ongoing active participation in order to have a profile? I would say that unless a site specifies that you CAN'T have a profile without actively participating, then by setting up one profile on the site you're not doing anything that comes close to the definition of SPAM.

Now if you set up a hundred profiles, that's something else entirely.

No, most of them don't...

But, the warrior forum doesn't require you to actively participate either...yet when someone comes here and posts a thread selling their nike shoes, it is deleted and considered spam, is it not?

[Joe118]

The problem with products like Angela's and Paul's is that, while it's an awesome product, it suffers from acute saturation. The more popular it becomes the less useful it will be. This has nothing to do with people stealing the packets or anything else. It has to do with flying under the radar versus getting noticed by webmasters.

The solution is right in front of your nose.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by Joe118

The problem with products like Angela's and Paul's is that, while it's an awesome product, it suffers from acute saturation. The more popular it becomes the less useful it will be. This has nothing to do with people stealing the packets or anything else. It has to do with flying under the radar versus getting noticed by webmasters.

The solution is right in front of your nose.

agreed.

This is also the reason that so many bookmarking sites won't let you bookmark an article at EZA or have changed their links from follow to nofollow. Also, pligg sites used to be great for SEO, but when thousands of people started using them, they are good for little more than indexing anymore.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

No, most of them don't...

But, the warrior forum doesn't require you to actively participate either...yet when someone comes here and posts a thread selling their nike shoes, it is deleted and considered spam, is it not?

But Jeremy, you well know that's not the same thing at all. Not even close. People are free to come here -- just like the sites in the packet -- and set up a profile without any requirement to participate.

If they do that, and never post, is that SPAM? Of course it isn't.

If they set up a profile here and put a link to their sites in their signature and then post replies on a number of threads, is that SPAM or is that within the guidelines of the rules of the site?

Of course it is within the rules.

Setting up a profile on a Web site isn't SPAM. Posting legitimate responses to a thread isn't SPAM. Having self-serving links in your sig isn't SPAM.

Again, I draw the line at people who take the packets and set up dozens of profiles on a site for themselves. To me, that's abuse and profile SPAM. But to set up one profile for yourself and to enter as many links as the profile allows is operating exactly within the framework of what the site owner invited you to do.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Steve, you are trying to justify it.

If you go to a website and your sole intention is to set a link on it and do nothing else, you are "spamming". Anyone that says it isn't, please list all of your sites and blogs here so I can go and grab some non-spam links.

I'm not saying "spam" in a dirty rotten viagra kind of way, but I'm sure that the owners of these sites look at it as spam, don't you think?

Just to make it clear, I'm not being self righteous and pointing any fingers. I use these links and employ other linking strategies that would make some people throw up on their shows. I'm just trying to put it in perspective.

[Joe118]

Steven

A long time ago in a universe far away from here ... I had a weblog where I wrote whatever came to my mind. I said what I wanted and I wrote what I wanted. I deleted any comments that I didnt like, and I allowed only comments that I liked. I was DRACONIAN and arbitrary, and completely ornery and impossible to argue with.

If people complained, I used to tell them "get your own podium, and broadcast your own point of view from there. This is *my* podium, I decide what gets said from here. I decide the rules." In the end of course I won, because blogging became cheap enough so that everyone and his pet chiuaua (sp?) is doing it now.

The point is that you cannot complain about what webmasters do on their site. What may seem like legit use of some site to you might be spam to these webmasters.

As I said before, the solution is right in front of your nose.

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

But Jeremy, you well know that's not the same thing at all. Not even close. People are free to come here -- just like the sites in the packet -- and set up a profile without any requirement to participate.

If they do that, and never post, is that SPAM? Of course it isn't.

If they set up a profile here and put a link to their sites in their signature and then post replies on a number of threads, is that SPAM or is that within the guidelines of the rules of the site?

Of course it is.

Setting up a profile on a Web site isn't SPAM. Posting legitimate responses to a thread isn't SPAM. Having self-serving links in your sig isn't SPAM.

Again, I draw the line at people who take the packets and set up dozens of profiles on a site for themselves. To me, that's abuse and profile SPAM. But to set up one profile for yourself and to enter as many links as the profile allows is operating exactly within the framework of what the site owner invited you to do.

[John Sullivan]

Hi Jeremy,

I think you hit the nail on the head. I doubt very much if any of these sites want 1000 people or more to register and then post 8-10 links. I also have seen at least one person running a WSO for doing the linking scheme of Angela's and Paul's.


John

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Steve, you are trying to justify it.

There's nothing to justify. If a site is open to anyone in the public setting up a profile without any restrictions over the amount of participation that is required, then there's nothing that comes even close to the definition of "SPAM" by accepting that invitation and setting up a profile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)

Again, I'm talking about one person, one profile. Not setting up dozens. That is, indeed, abusive. But creating one profile at the open invitation of the site owner? Nothing wrong in that at all.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

agreed.

This is also the reason that so many bookmarking sites won't let you bookmark an article at EZA or have changed their links from follow to nofollow. Also, pligg sites used to be great for SEO, but when thousands of people started using them, they are good for little more than indexing anymore.

You could say the same thing about blog commenting; hundreds of thousands of people have used this method just about since blogs were invented. And yet~blog commenting is humming along just fine; YEARS after people said it was going to go away.

It's only people who don't realize the vastness of the Internet who think a group of people who would be considered a drop in the bucket comparatively speaking getting backlinks from the same sites is going to "die". Again, the packets have 30 FRESH, new sites EVERY month. And again, some sites WILL remove linking capability EVERY time. Many won't. It's been that way all along and except for the "comment sites" issue with the real spammers, nothing has really changed since the program started and there were less than a dozen subscribers. Nothing has "died". No "golden goose" has been killed.

People are still, even now...finding that the backlinks are moving their sites to the top of Google for their search terms.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Steve, I'm pretty sure that these site owners have an "open invitation" to people that are interested in what their website is about. I'm fairly certain that a jewish community forum extends their invitation for someone pimping the latest and greatest dog training manuals to come and add to their number of outbound links that are not authority. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it pretty much does little else but piss them off Hence the reason some of these sites are resorting to making their outbound links nofollow or making it impossible to register.

Your definition of spam and mine don't really matter in the end though. The poeple that own these sites seem to be defining it pretty well. At one point, I believe one of the sites even had a warning on their front page that if you were there to just get a link from these packets that you would be reported for spam. Anyone else remember that?

[axleman]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Setting up a profile on a Web site isn't SPAM. Posting legitimate responses to a thread isn't SPAM. Having self-serving links in your sig isn't SPAM.

Well, it doesn't really matter what we define as spam. It's what a typical website admin would and I am willing to bet their definition is much stricter than ours

Jeremy & Joe are making some very good points and I agree that it's more likely the volume of new profiles that raises flags vs what they contain most of the time.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Joe118

Steven

A long time ago in a universe far away from here ... I had a weblog where I wrote whatever came to my mind. I said what I wanted and I wrote what I wanted. I deleted any comments that I didnt like, and I allowed only comments that I liked. I was DRACONIAN and arbitrary, and completely ornery and impossible to argue with.

If people complained, I used to tell them "get your own podium, and broadcast your own point of view from there. This is *my* podium, I decide what gets said from here. I decide the rules."

Naturally, that's the way it should be. I've been on the internet since the internet was only a dot prompt. I was a big dog on Fidonet. Your POV on it is completely correct: a site owner has the right to do with his site whatever he chooses.

And if he chooses to open it up to allow anyone to register an account and set up links in it, that's completely his right. And if he wants to delete accounts he feels isn't worthy, that's completely his right as well.

Originally Posted by Joe118

The point is that you cannot complain about what webmasters do on their site. What may seem like legit use of some site to you might be spam to these webmasters.

I'm not complaining in the least. That's the way it SHOULD be, site owners should run their sites as they see fit, and the complainers should just shut up and move on or start their own sites. I'm just pointing out that setting up a profile on a site at the site operator's invitation certainly isn't anywhere near the definition of "SPAM".

Originally Posted by Joe118

As I said before, the solution is right in front of your nose.

Personally, I don't even use Angela's packets any longer, the mob has killed it for me (but I'm a long-time IMer and these packets are probably best for those who are new-ish to backlinking) so these sites taking action against the mob isn't a problem for me.

Finding places to backlink from that aren't the target of the mob is quite easy and more effective because you can stay under the radar.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

You could say the same thing about blog commenting; hundreds of thousands of people have used this method just about since blogs were invented. And yet~blog commenting is humming along just fine; YEARS after people said it was going to go away.

Again, I'm not saying that this type of linking is bad or dying. What I am saying is distributing the same 30 links to 1000 people is killing the sites off that are in your packet.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

It's only people who don't realize the vastness of the Internet who think a group of people who would be considered a drop in the bucket comparatively speaking getting backlinks from the same sites is going to "die". Again, the packets have 30 FRESH, new sites EVERY month. And again, some sites WILL remove linking capability EVERY time. Many won't. It's been that way all along and except for the "comment sites" issue with the real spammers, nothing has really changed since the program started and there were less than a dozen subscribers. Nothing has "died". No "golden goose" has been killed.

You fail to see what some people are saying. I understand that $5 is nothing. I spend more than that a day on Coffee as I'm sure many others do. But, when I get a packet with 30 links and 18 of them work a week later, this should tell everyone something.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

People are still, even now...finding that the backlinks are moving their sites to the top of Google for their search terms.

Backlinks in general tend to do that, regardless of the source. I agree that pages on high PR sites give you an edge, but I still feel like you are failing to consider some of the points that are being made.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Steve, I'm pretty sure that these site owners have an "open invitation" to people that are interested in what their website is about.

Well if they state that on the sign up invitation, then people who sign up and ignore the statement "You must be interested in the topics discussed on our site or you should not set up a profile" aren't following the rules. Of course, I wonder if those sites also have an "off topic" forum?

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

I'm fairly certain that a jewish community forum extends their invitation for someone pimping the latest and greatest dog training manuals to come and add to their number of outbound links that are not authority. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it pretty much does little else but piss them off Hence the reason some of these sites are resorting to making their outbound links nofollow or making it impossible to register.

Well, nofollow versus dofollow isn't important for linkbuilding, so that's really not effective in discouraging people from setting up profiles for that purpose.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

Your definition of spam and mine don't really matter in the end though. The poeple that own these sites seem to be defining it pretty well.

Exactly correct. If they don't like it, then they should take steps to prevent it -- that's exactly their right to do so and precisely how it should be. It's like the shop owner who goes home at night and leaves the door to his store wide open all night long. Rather than come in the next morning and complain that people took all of his merchandise, he should instead take steps to secure the products by locking door.

Very simple, and completely within his rights to do so.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

At one point, I believe one of the sites even had a warning on their front page that if you were there to just get a link from these packets that you would be reported for spam. Anyone else remember that?

There have been a number of sites complaining within a day or two of Angela's packets coming out. And again, completely within their rights to decide that they want to modify their site to reduce the open invitation at any point.

[belgirl]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you and agree with Steven. Setting up a profile on a site with one or two links without actively participating does not mean you are a "spammer." And what qualifies as "active participation?" What if it's a news site that I visit every day to glean information, but don't post? Does that mean I am a spammer? What if after putting 2 links in my profile, I clicked on one of the sites "ads" and they made $100 that day? Think they would mind then? Is that "active participation?" Several sites that Angela had in her packets, I was already a member of--for years. So now if I add a link to one of my sites, I am now a "spammer?" Come now...If they don't want links, then they can disable the html code in the profile--period. Not that hard to do.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

lol...

The whole conversation is truly comical.

It's because of the "blach-hatters" and thieves...

It's because sites change...

NOPE...

It's because everyone that is using these packets at least in a small way is a "spammer". How many people are getting this packet now? At a minimum it is 500, plus you have at least one person running a WSO creating a ton of profiles to place links off of Angelas packet and other packets....

Guess what folks...There are not very many if any of these sites that want you showing up just to put your link on them. The fact that hundreds of people are doing it at the same time is probably definitely raising a flag.

For the ones that will reply with "I'm not spamming" I'll ask you to please tell me what you are adding to these sites that would make it worth them to keep your links active or look at you as a contributing member to their site.

With all that being said, I use these types of links too...and am willing to accept and admit that some of my link building strategies are a little "spammy" while others are outright disgusting.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by axleman

Well, it doesn't really matter what we define as spam. It's what a typical website admin would and I am willing to bet their definition is much stricter than ours

Precisely.

Originally Posted by axleman

Jeremy & Joe are making some very good points and I agree that it's more likely the volume of new profiles that raises flags vs what they contain most of the time.

No question that the volume is raising the awareness of this condition. That's why I don't view the current method of distributing these links as viable as it once was.

[Angela V. Edwards]

You fail to see what some people are saying. I understand that $5 is nothing. I spend more than that a day on Coffee as I'm sure many others do. But, when I get a packet with 30 links and 18 of them work a week later, this should tell everyone something.

Where did you get the number 18? So far we have had one person say that only 8 sites worked, another said all of them worked, another said that 24 of them worked. When sites stop working, I hear about it via email from the subscribers. So I am "in the know" about how many and which ones are and are not working. And it's now the middle of the month; not "a week later".

And it's not that I am "failing to consider some of the points that are being made"; it's the fact that NOTHING has CHANGED since the beginning of the program. SOME SITES go away, but the majority of the sites stay good; just like they have this month. This month is the same as it's been from the start. No matter HOW I distribute the packets or how many people DO or DON'T get the information about the websites, this is going to be the case EVERY MONTH.

That's what people are not understanding. The fact that a few sites in this month's packet have changed things or have blocked links is nothing new and it was this way back in August of last year when the program started; nothing is different now.

I don't know how many ways to say it so that people will "get it": The fact that a few sites have blocked links this month is not a new thing and it's not any worse this month than it has been ANY other month even when only FIVE people were getting the links!!

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by belgirl

I will have to respectfully disagree with you and agree with Steven. Setting up a profile on a site with one or two links without actively participating does not mean you are a "spammer." And what qualifies as "active participation?" What if it's a news site that I visit every day to glean information, but don't post? Does that mean I am a spammer? What if after putting 2 links in my profile, I clicked on one of the sites "ads" and they made $100 that day? Think they would mind then? Is that "active participation?" Several sites that Angela had in her packets, I was already a member of--for years. So now if I add a link to one of my sites, I am now a "spammer?" Come now...If they don't want links, then they can disable the html code in the profile--period. Not that hard to do.

Yeah, the site owner should have to go through a bunch of extra work to protect themselves and their sites from having 1000 profiles created with the sole intention of sucking their PR. It makes perfect sense now.

Since it's such a good thing, I'll extent the same invitation to you that I did to Steve. List all your sites and blogs so, we can all go and set up a profile or leave a couple of comments

[axleman]

Again, I don't think it matters what we here might define as spam and it's pretty pointless to be arguing about it.

Here is what we do know:
1) The service that Angela (and others) provide is valuable and it definitely works.

2) The subscriber base is large enough that when new packets come out, there is enough activity to set off alarms at a certain percentage of these sites, which shuts down those sites and decreases the value to the subscribers. (I'm willing to bet some of these sites might only have a few hundred or a few thousand members to start with.)

Angela and Paul are free to do what they want of course, but if it was my business, I would look for some way to try to keep it under the radar better, by either changing the distribution method or increasing the price and reducing the subscriber base (or something else that I haven't thought of yet.)

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

Where did you get the number 18? So far we have had one person say that only 8 sites worked, another said all of them worked, another said that 24 of them worked. When sites stop working, I hear about it via email from the subscribers. So I am "in the know" about how many and which ones are and are not working. And it's now the middle of the month; not "a week later".

When I sent the packet to "my girl" a week after I got it, 18 worked. So, I'm not just pulling the number out of thin air or making it up. By "worked" i'm talking about sites that allowed me to place a DOFOLLOW link on their site.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

And it's not that I am "failing to consider some of the points that are being made"; it's the fact that NOTHING has CHANGED since the beginning of the program. SOME SITES go away, but the majority of the sites stay good; just like they have this month. This month is the same as it's been from the start. No matter HOW I distribute the packets or how many people DO or DON'T get the information about the websites, this is going to be the case EVERY MONTH.

What has changed is that in the beginning a "couple" sites would take preventative action, not nearly half of them as has been the case in more than one month. Even if you gave 10 links that worked at $5 that is still a hell of a deal. The point that I'm trying to make is that as the group of people that gets your list increases more and more of the sites are NOT GOING TO WORK.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

That's what people are not understanding. The fact that a few sites in this month's packet have changed things or have blocked links is nothing new and it was this way back in August of last year when the program started; nothing is different now.

Again the difference is 3 or 4 sites taking action to prevent us from posting links and a large percentage of them doing so. Not only that, but even links that were placed successfully months ago are starting to disappear as people buy the older issues or go back again to create more profiles.

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

I don't know how many ways to say it so that people will "get it": The fact that a few sites have blocked links this month is not a new thing and it's not any worse this month than it has been ANY other month even when only FIVE people were getting the links!!

If you put it that way, as someone who pays for these links, the only thing I should "GET" is 30 links that work.

[Angela V. Edwards]

You are embellishing the truth just to make your point and there is no sense in discussing it any further. A few sites will change things every month; that's the way it was before, that's the way it is now, and that's the way it always will be. Except for the month that had the "comment sites" in it, NONE of the packets lost "half" the sites or even anywhere close. Including this month's packet.

I never guaranteed that none of the sites would change things and if that's what your expectation is, then maybe I'm not the person to be finding your backlinks for you.

[Joe118]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Precisely.
No question that the volume is raising the awareness of this condition. That's why I don't view the current method of distributing these links as viable as it once was.

Steven, my point is that there *is* no viable method of distribution. Even if the links are only distributed under sworn secrecy, it does not help; people that want to find them will find them. Just as a 'for example', I can take all the sites in banker's sig or John Sullivan's sig, and find all the links I want to abuse.

[Terry Kyle]

Good backlinkers should also develop their OWN parallel sources of backlinks which are unsaturated by Angela and PJs monthly subscribers (including me).

If you do any backlinking yourself, certain patterns start to emerge on these sites and that should give you plenty of ideas for sources of links FAR from the monthly Angela/PJ stampede (which is still a truly great service).

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Joe118

Steven, my point is that there *is* no viable method of distribution.

Well, I certainly know a way to mitigate the problem technologically.

[Joe118]

OK I've had enough. Read this:

The Netscape Unofficial FAQ Forums-viewtopic-Angela From Aberdeen

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

I never guaranteed that none of the sites would change things and if that's what your expectation is, then maybe I'm not the person to be finding your backlinks for you.

I personally like your packets, I don't however like the way you accused me of lying. So, You now have 2 less subscribers as Don and I both have an active subscription. Congratulations.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

When I sent the packet to "my girl" a week after I got it, 18 worked. So, I'm not just pulling the number out of thin air or making it up. By "worked" i'm talking about sites that allowed me to place a DOFOLLOW link on their site.

Ok, so why the emphasis on DOFOLLOW only? Did Angela guarantee all DOFOLLOW links? What if she sent a packet of 30 links that are all NOFOLLOW but are open for new profiles -- by your definition then do NONE of her sites work?

Not attacking, just trying to understand your POV on this. I'm not sure I ever read that Angela guarantees 30 DOFOLLOW links every month, but I may be mistaken.

[4morereferrals]

I they can build article spinners with the intelligence needed ... surely Angela could invest in oDesk / elance programmer to allow her to put in a master list of sites, and build a unique randomizer based on the subscribers email address to randomly kick out 30 or so sites per month, and strip dupes? Just thinking outloud ...

Well then ... if the packet sellers are cool with others taking their packets and reselling them [ essentially ] to other "clients" and creating 100's of profiles on the sites - then why get all beefed on the alledged "blackhatters" so called "stealing" the packets and giving them away for free.

I see little difference ... I buy it once and resell them to others 100 times at no additional cost. That just devalues the purchase for the other subscribers. Doesnt it? Not sure I get the logic.

The argument that its just $5 is specious ... in that my outsourcer and my time is NOT just $5, and who has that kind of time to waste on a project that is designed to self destruct ...

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Joe118

OK I've had enough. Read this:

The Netscape Unofficial FAQ Forums-viewtopic-Angela From Aberdeen

Yeah, so? Sorry Joe, I must have missed the point of your post.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Joe118

OK I've had enough. Read this:

The Netscape Unofficial FAQ Forums-viewtopic-Angela From Aberdeen

That's been there a long time. And the only "spam" I put on that site was my Angela page and my backlinks article. Almost ALL forums view links in sig files as "spam" no matter what it links to. My friend Rick, who has a podcast site, linked to a song of his that was completely free on one site and the link was removed and he was told never to do that again. Different websites have different views of what constitutes "spam".

[axleman]

The WSO does in fact state do follow. (Not that it matters that much to me personally.)

[Joe118]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Yeah, so? Sorry Joe, I must have missed the point of your post.

Angela's service is a way to spam. ES PEE AYE AM. No way around it.

As to the assertion being made here that sites not working is a more frequent and increasing occurrence, I wouldnt know. We have two reputable people disagreeing -- Angela vs Jeremy.

[Angela V. Edwards]

And that's exactly what I put into the packets: 30 sites that I personally tested 24-48 hours before the packets come out to make sure they are all Do Follow and all allow links. However, again...these are not my sites so people can't expect a guarantee that ALL the sites will work forever. That, I never guaranteed.

[Joe118]

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

That's been there a long time. And the only "spam" I put on that site was my Angela page and my backlinks article. Almost ALL forums view links in sig files as "spam" no matter what it links to. My friend Rick, who has a podcast site, linked to a song of his that was completely free on one site and the link was removed and he was told never to do that again. Different websites have different views of what constitutes "spam".

Fair enough. I was just prompted to post this because of your previous railings against black hatters and spammers.

One person's spam is another person's golden info, eh?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Terry Kyle

Good backlinkers should also develop their OWN parallel sources of backlinks which are unsaturated by Angela and PJs monthly subscribers (including me).

Indeed. I've personally moved away from Angela's packets, and that's no reflection on the value. I think for the new-ish backlinker, Angela's packets are a great place to start due to the low price.

My independent contractor will backlink the entire packet for me each month -- one profile per site only of course -- for about $8.50 for all 30 sites. This month they complained to me that some of the links weren't successful, so they went out and found sites on their own to replace the ones that didn't work from Angela's 30. In our conversation, they felt it would take them less time to just find good sites than to go through the packet, discover that some sites aren't working for whatever reason, and then have to find new sites afterward.

But again, I'm probably more sophisticated than some. Those who are newer to backlinking probably do the linking themselves, thus encountering a bad site or two only costs them a bit of their time, not money.

[Jeremy Kelsall]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Ok, so why the emphasis on DOFOLLOW only? Did Angela guarantee all DOFOLLOW links? What if she sent a packet of 30 links that are all NOFOLLOW but are open for new profiles -- by your definition then do NONE of her sites work?

From the sales letter:

It's a quick and easy process that you can do all at once, or you can leave one link every day each month. The choice is up to you. All 30 links are checked each month to make sure they are Do Follow.


Again, I want to make it clear as I have tried to do through this post that I am not knocking Angelas product. On the contrary, I would be willing to bet that she has probably 100 customers as a result of my direct recommendation of the links when she first released them and I'm not even an affiliate, but I did suggest them in 3 of my bootcamps which were attended by at least 500 people each.

I simply feel that the distribution number is getting too large and is directly resulting in more of these sites being changed to nofollow or not allowing links at all.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by axleman

The WSO does in fact state do follow. (Not that it matters that much to me personally.)

Yep, you're right. I just read the WSO and saw this:

"All 30 links are checked each month to make sure they are Do Follow."

I'm sure Angela doesn't intend to deliver something other than what she's advertising, so she probably should consider checking the language of her WSO.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Joe118

Fair enough. I was just prompted to post this because of your previous railings against black hatters and spammers.

One person's spam is another person's golden info, eh?

Yes that is true actually. Unless it's blatant spam (one Page Rank 6 .Edu site that was posted on Digital Point right after my packet came out had ENTIRE PAGES of links posted on it), who decides what is "spam" and what is not? Everyone has their own ideas and some types of website owners are more sensitive to links than other types of website owners.

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Yep, you're right. I just read the WSO and saw this:

"All 30 links are checked each month to make sure they are Do Follow."

I'm sure Angela doesn't intend to deliver something other than what she's advertising, so she probably should consider checking the language of her WSO.

But I DO check each site. Just because it changes LATER doesn't mean that my "language" is deceptive.

[Astounding Writing Coach]

Good job. Keep experimenting. That's how you figure out what works.

The more times you experiment, the faster you'll figure out the best strategy for your niche.

Let us know how that all went!

Astounding Writing Coach

[Angela V. Edwards]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Kelsall

From the sales letter:

It's a quick and easy process that you can do all at once, or you can leave one link every day each month. The choice is up to you. All 30 links are checked each month to make sure they are Do Follow.


Again, I want to make it clear as I have tried to do through this post that I am not knocking Angelas product. On the contrary, I would be willing to bet that she has probably 100 customers as a result of my direct recommendation of the links when she first released them and I'm not even an affiliate, but I did suggest them in 3 of my bootcamps which were attended by at least 500 people each.

I simply feel that the distribution number is getting too large and is directly resulting in more of these sites being changed to nofollow or not allowing links at all.

One thing that I've done that others have mentioned here is I made myself a "power list" of great sites from EACH packet that still work well and that are the highest Page Rank. When I have any new project that needs great rankings, this is what I use to get that ranking. It doesn't take very many of these sites to get my project to Page One, usually.

I would actually recommend doing this sort of thing instead of everybody going to all the sites right away.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Jeremy:

I wasn't aware of the language in the WSO that indicated all 30 were "Do Follow" and since I've now checked, I completely understand your POV that if they all aren't (or at least the vast majority of them aren't) DOFOLLOW then you're not getting exactly what you expected, regardless of the price.

I think Angela is a great person, so I assume that this if the links aren't DOFOLLOW when she sends the packet it is simply an oversight in the language of the WSO and she'll probably correct it.