<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Gaining Backlinks</title> <atom:link href="http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/</link> <description>Sit and Read</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:25:57 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Chuck Points</title><link>http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/#comment-15915</link> <dc:creator>Chuck Points</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 13:58:00 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://techgeeks-online.com/?p=1024#comment-15915</guid> <description>I think a two way link works the same as a no follow link. it still counts as a link to your site but it will not increase your page rank because you are basically giving that pagerank right back to them. And for those people confused about do follow and no follow. I decided to try for my self an experiment. I build a site and only did nofollow backlinks, it still ranked on google even though they say they dont use nofollow links. So my advise to everybody would be to build both because they both have value and it looks more natural to google that way. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a two way link works the same as a no follow link. it still counts as a link to your site but it will not increase your page rank because you are basically giving that pagerank right back to them.</p><p>And for those people confused about do follow and no follow. I decided to try for my self an experiment. I build a site and only did nofollow backlinks, it still ranked on google even though they say they dont use nofollow links. So my advise to everybody would be to build both because they both have value and it looks more natural to google that way.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jesse Kanclerz</title><link>http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/#comment-15708</link> <dc:creator>Jesse Kanclerz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 11:05:07 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://techgeeks-online.com/?p=1024#comment-15708</guid> <description>&quot;The difference between the two is that dofollow links do pass on pagerank to your site while nofollow links don&#8217;t&quot; From what I&#039;ve read no-follow links do pass some value. I also wouldn&#039;t discourage newbie webmasters from only going after do-follow links. It&#039;s important to keep in mind that Google looks for un-natural link building patterns. If a site is collecting only do follow links that&#039;s a sign that it&#039;s being optimized which could lead to a penalty and drop in the rankings. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;The difference between the two is that dofollow links do pass on pagerank to your site while nofollow links don&rsquo;t&quot;</p><p>From what I&#039;ve read no-follow links do pass some value. I also wouldn&#039;t discourage newbie webmasters from only going after do-follow links.</p><p>It&#039;s important to keep in mind that Google looks for un-natural link building patterns. If a site is collecting only do follow links that&#039;s a sign that it&#039;s being optimized which could lead to a penalty and drop in the rankings.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Techie</title><link>http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/#comment-15528</link> <dc:creator>Techie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:01:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://techgeeks-online.com/?p=1024#comment-15528</guid> <description>Link exchanges used to work for pagerank but they don&#039;t anymore. And a master of SEO wouldn&#039;t really be telling you that link exchanges are good to boost pagerank because they would know that pagerank isn&#039;t the most important thing. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Link exchanges used to work for pagerank but they don&#039;t anymore.</p><p>And a master of SEO wouldn&#039;t really be telling you that link exchanges are good to boost pagerank because they would know that pagerank isn&#039;t the most important thing.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Guest</title><link>http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/#comment-15526</link> <dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:47:15 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://techgeeks-online.com/?p=1024#comment-15526</guid> <description>a bit confused, many blogs with high page rank i found but they did exchange links and even more than hundreds of links beetween themg. According to the information from other master of SEO, the best way to gain higher page rank is building links and the links building is link exchange but do not excessively. Btw how to get quickly backlink from google?thanks </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>a bit confused, many blogs with high page rank i found but they did exchange links and even more than hundreds of links beetween themg. According to the information from other master of SEO, the best way to gain higher page rank is building links and the links building is link exchange but do not excessively. Btw how to get quickly backlink from google?thanks</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Techie</title><link>http://w3techie.com/2010/gaining-backlinks/#comment-6324</link> <dc:creator>Techie</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:10:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://techgeeks-online.com/?p=1024#comment-6324</guid> <description>But Google has told us that they put no value through two way links anymore. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But Google has told us that they put no value through two way links anymore.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Served from: w3techie.com @ 2012-02-04 10:11:56 by W3 Total Cache -->
