Do you recommend www.submit-it.com?
-
Is www.submit-it.com a good way of submitting to all search engines?
-
I would never use something like that always bites you on the arse. It seems too good to be true which it is.
-
Thanks right Kari! Adding sitemap to webmaster tools is all that is needed and search engines will pick the website itself...
Ryan is right all you will receive after that is offers that will take you money away from your pockets...
You simply don’t need to go for it!
-
In addition, there are basically two search engine indexes to worry about -- Google and Bing (as Bing now powers Yahoo!). If you're in Google and Bing, that covers most of your organic search traffic right there. They each have their own way to submit if you're not already in their index, and they each have their own webmaster tools that can give you a lot of information about how your site is performing and what might be causing problems.
-
This is the kind of service that will earn you link penalties from Google.
-
I agree with Ryan, you shouldn't use that or any other software that looks too good to be true but I won't agree with the "earn links, don't build them"... Not anymore.
I have done that for years and I am now fed up with it. Earned links come in ages and ages. You will end up frustrated if you wait for back-links to come naturally. Meanwhile, your competitors will have built hundreds of back-links and you'll be out of the competition.
If all the top ranking sites were EARNING LINKS and not BUILDING them, I would have agreed with Ryan but that's not the case. Open Site Explorer clearly shows that. Pick any keyword and most of the time, you'll see that top ranking sites have not really earned those back-links but built them.
When Google and other search engines get better and can tell which backlink has actually been earned and which one has been built, I can agree with Ryan. Today, they only TALK about it.
rant over...
-
You would never want to use a site like the one you shared or anything similar. You are more likely to damage your SEO then to help it.
You need to earn links, not build them.
Simply asking such a question is likely to flood your mailbox with many offers which are almost certainly going to take your money and not provide any tangible SEO benefits.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
H2 tags always recommended? Or ok without?
Is it ok to have no h2 tags? There are no "keywords" relevant to the product in these example h2 tags. Also, is it ok to not have a PRODUCT DESCRIPTION header, or is it better with that header? It's for a "product page". Examples: <h1>Used Bow Front Desk With Mahogany Laminate</h1> <h2 style="display:inline;">QTY:</h2> 3 - <h2 style="display:inline;">Manufacturer:</h2> Hon <h2>Product Description:</h2> <p>This bow front desk is in excellent condition. It has a beautiful mahogany laminate.</p> OR (no h2 tags or product description header at all) <h1>Used Bow Front Desk With Mahogany Laminate</h1> <p>QTY: 3 - Manufacturer: Hon</p> <p>This bow front desk is in excellent condition. It has a beautiful mahogany laminate.</p> I prefer the last one as it's much simpler, but I'm curious if search engines would prefer the existence of h2 tags in the first version. Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | NRSmart
Todd0 -
Https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine title too long
https://www.fitness-china.com/hip-thrust-machine title too long But we have two keywords Hip Thrust Machine and Glute Bridge Machine it 's ok?
On-Page Optimization | | ahislop5740 -
Recommendation for keyword relevancy/density tool
Can anyone give a recommendation other good keyword relevancy and density tool? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | seoman100 -
I am trying to better understand solving the duplicate content issues highlighted in your recent crawl report of our site - www.thehomesites.com.
Below are some of the urls highlighted as having duplicate content -
On-Page Optimization | | urahul
http://www.thehomesites.com/zip_details/76105
http://www.thehomesites.com/zip_details/44135
http://www.thehomesites.com/zip_details/75227
http://www.thehomesites.com/zip_details/94501 These are neighborhood reports generated for 4 different zip codes. We use a standard template to create these reports. What are some of the steps we can take to avoid these pages being categorized as duplicate content?0 -
.com vs .co.uk domain
I have a client who has a site live at example**.co.uk** and would like to rank for the term "example". But example**.com** is owned by another company who offers a different product and service and has been live since 2003. I know that I can make example**.co.uk** rank for keywords related to their service but I think it's going to be a struggle to get them to rank for the brand term "example" as the .com site already owns Page 1 with their domain name, Facebook page, Wiki page etc etc. The only variation is that example**.com** is a US based company and my client want to ranks in the UK only. What are the chances I can out rank example**.com** for the brand term on www.google.co.uk if example**.com** currently owns Page 1 on google**.co.uk**?
On-Page Optimization | | Marketing_Today0 -
Www.sitename.com or sitename.com?
A client of mine's site is currently sitename.com. www.sitename.com redirects to the non-www URL and the canonical is using the non-www URL. This is a fairly new site and there aren't many existing inbound links. Is there a benefit to switching this?
On-Page Optimization | | BostonWright0 -
"Canonical URL Tag Usage" recommendation in SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool
Here comes another one related to SEOmoz "On-Page Optimization" Tool. The tool says the following about one of our pages: Canonical URL Tag Usage Explanation: Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to
On-Page Optimization | | gerardoH
use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future
developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe
the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic
today. Recommendation: Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page. Let's say our page is http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand and on its header we'll place the following tag: Is this correct? I thought the canonical tag was meant for duplicates of the original page, for example: http://www.example.com/brands/print/abc-brand href="http://www.example.com/brands/abc-brand**?SESSID=123** Thanks in advance.0 -
Max # of recommended links per page?
I've heard it said that Google may choose to stop following links after the first 100 on a page. The landing/category pages for my site's product catalog have earned quite a respectable PR and positioning in search results, and I'm currently paginating their product listings (about 200 products in a category) so that only a couple dozen products are shown on the first page, with links to "next page" and "previous page" being accomplished via query string (i.e. "?page=3"). An alternative option I have is to link to 100% of the contained products within the category's landing page (which would increase my on-page link count to ~300) and use CSS/Javascript to allow the user to simulate browsing between pages on the client side. My goal is to see as many of my product pages indexed as possible. Is this done better using my current scheme (where Googlebot would have to navigate to, say, Landing Page -> Page 6 -> Deeply Buried Product Page) or in the alternative method above, where all the links are in a single page? Since my landing pages are currently treated pretty well by search engines, would that "trust" cause them to follow more links than might normally be done? Thank you!
On-Page Optimization | | cadenzajon0