Comments on: Wikipedia Links pt 2 - The Semi-Automated White Hat Way

by: misterz

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:10:51 +0000

pua tips, yeah php is a simple language.
Rett, there are some king of immidiate
Austin, no they won’t

by: love2u

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:21:20 +0000

Interesting Idea!
http://www.love2u.ro

Regards!

by: modemlooper

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:01:18 +0000

http://www.mahalo.com/

i add links to this site all the time.

by: pua tips

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:52:12 +0000

Very nice tool to develop. Unfortunately I don’t have the scripting skills to do this kind of stuff. If I am to go about learning a scripting language, what do you guys think I should start learning, php?

by: Dave

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:12:18 +0000

I disagree. While no-follow links don’t count in Google - there’s a bunch of other engines that disregard the no-follow tag. Also remember that there are gazillions of sites that scrape wikipedia…

by: Eli

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:36:37 +0000

You might want to read the comments posted on Wikipedia Links Part 1.

by: Brass fittings

Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:21:00 +0000

Wiki has no follow tag .

So all the effrort is useless.

by: Rett

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:52:19 +0000

Are you seeing “immediate” benefit from this? I’ve seeded wikipedia several times, but haven’t seen anything besides a small bump in traffic (via my inserted links)…no impact in SERPs for me.

I’d be surprised if SE’s didn’t have some type of “trust” timeframe on Wikipedia links. Example: if link has existed for 6mos, pass a bit more love, etc. etc.

by: A Creative Desktop

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:01:53 +0000

Wikipedia Links part 2 - the semi-automated white hat way

From the page at http://www.bluehatseo.com “The objective of this technique will be to semi-automate the process of submitting your content links to Wikipedia. There will be two backends. The first will be used by your content writers(you if app…

by: Austin

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:54:54 +0000

As long as the articles are relevent, well written, and linked properly, what would be the problem.?

by: Eli

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:26:20 +0000

The title of the series is Wikipedia Links not Wikipedia Spam. It’ll get increasingly more spammy as it goes but it will remain “sticky spam” at worst. Which will mean useful related articles and links, or at least as close as possible.

by: john h.

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:52:04 +0000

Ok, you have to define spam here. If the articles are relevent and well writen, then just because your using it for marketing techniques, doesn’t make it spam.
Thats the key. those articles MUST be relevent and fit the wikipedia article!

by: The Warcraft Millionaire

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:04:19 +0000

From what I’ve seen wikipedia has an efficient anti-spam/vandalism team. I wonder if they’ll start banning external links to domains that spam them. Of course then it could be used to block competitors from wikipedia.

by: Eli

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:49:14 +0000

hehe see these wiki posts are starting to get up where they need to be

we’ll see how ppl handle this one cus the next will take another step up.

by: Robby

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:53:40 +0000

Thank you for yet another excellent tactic.

This has almost unlimited potential for abuse. Look for ruthless spammers to run this into the ground any time soon, to the great satisfaction of Encyclopedia Britannica…