Do you use Social Bookmarking?

[Maxoq]

Do you guys use social bookmarking to drive traffic to your site. Is it very good for SEO?

Any comments?

 

[anhbloginc]

Yes sure. I'm using it to diversity my link profiles , no need much, but a few may be good to link building campaigns.

 

[SEOPub]

It is utterly useless for SEO.

There was a time where the most popular social bookmarking sites could drive a lot of traffic if you knew or were one of the more influential members. For example, you could get something on the top of Digg if you knew the right people and expect 20,000+ visitors from it in a few hours. The site got too big though and overrun with total junk. You really cannot expect much of anything from it or any other bookmarking sites.

 

[bebetsizo1]

Try Social Adr .... THey are one the best tools that I have used.

 

[SIG]

They are good for link diversity. But you cannot rank with them.

Even if you get lucky and you get traffic from the social bookmarking sites, they will not stay long on your website.

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

You do not need "link diversity". That is a stupid myth.

 

[PTTed]

PTTed

Why not just say - it is a myth and drop the word "stupid" from your response? Or replace it with a better word like "recurring" or "persistent" or "unproven"

Are you really getting the point across better by saying that something someone else said is "stupid"?

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

Just to be clear, I was calling the myth stupid, not the poster.

People need to grow some thicker skins around here.

You may not like the tone, but I was not insulting anyone.

If you feel it is really that big of a problem, edit or delete it. That is what you are supposed to do as a mod.

I don't care.

I'm more worried about people being mislead by nonsense than the tone.

 

[SIG]

SIG

You just made me laugh.

So your saying ''link diversity" is a **** myth?

Then how about building backlinks only from web 2.0 and nothing else. Build 1k backlinks of web 2.0? isn't that suspicious?

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

No that is weak.

Google does not look for diversity. I have ranked pages with nothing but one "type" of link in the past.

I have done it with guest posting. I have done it with nothing but directory links. Long time ago, I did it with nothing but blog comments.

The whole idea that you need to have different types of links in order to rank a page is just a big myth.

Just look for good links period. It does not matter what "type" of links they are. Don't chase this diversity idea. It plays zero role in rankings.

 

[PTTed]

PTTed

The link diversity thing is a myth in my opinion too. I too have ranked various pages on various websites with zero link diversity at all. Every single link was a contextual dofollow link. Zero social signals. Zero nofollow links.

Now, just because I was and am able to do that, it does not mean that link diversity isn't something that Google might look at. But if they do look at it, then it must come into play only after a certain number of links. I say that because I continue to rank site after site after site with pretty much one type of link and that is contextual dofollow hyperlinks from pages with link juice. You honestly don't need anything else at all to rank in Google.

You can use other things to help you rank more easily, but I don't believe link diversity is one of them. I have not seen it come into play even one single time ever. That is why I say that.

I get why people think it is a real thing. A lot of respectable and knowledgeable people on the internet still think link diversity matters. I don't think those people ever tested it though. If you test it with your next website, you will see it isn't true as long as you are just using links that are counted by Google. In other words, don't use any crappy links at all. Just use good, dofollow hyperlinks from pages with enough link juice. In my experience, contextually embedded links from juicy and trustworthy pages work the best.

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

The way I always explain to people is this...

Do you really think Google is sitting there with this checklist?

Social Bookmarks - Check!
Forum Links - Check!
Profile Links - Check!
PDF Submissions - Check!
Blog Comments - Check!
Contexual Links - Check!
Web 2.0 Links - Missing!

Oh shoot. We were going to rank your page #1, but we didn't see any Web 2.0 links. Sorry.

It's just a really silly idea when you sit down and think about it.

 

[PTTed]

PTTed

It is a bit silly. Google really only cares about links it thinks are honest votes for content (whether it is right or wrong about it).

I envision Google separating it this way -

Links that should probably be counted towards rankings - boost rankings
Links that should probably not be counted towards rankings - discounted, disregarded or penalized

Links from trustworthy pages on trustworthy websites get counted.
Links that are too easy for anyone to create are - discounted, disregarded or penalized depending on the circumstances. Most of the links that are super easy for anyone to create are juice-less links anyway.

If all you have are links that Google thinks it should count towards rankings then that is all you need. I doubt it really matters whether you are competing for long tails or for the highest volume keywords. I don't think it matters what type of link it is as long as it is a trustworthy link from a trustworthy site on a page with at least a little bit of link juice.

 

[lakshmimahas269]

Only a few but good quality social bookmarking is enough which helps to make your website get traffic and increase the pagerank?

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

Are you asking or are you telling us that?

If you are looking at social bookmarking thinking that it is going to bring you traffic and increase your PageRank, you should probably rethink your marketing strategy. It is really not going to do either one.