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
-
Www and non-www
I have a site that has used both www and non-www urls since inception years ago. Moz is saying that I have 183 pages of duplicate content, and it is all because each internal link has both versions. Both versions have high PR and links going back to them...should I still 301 redirect to one of them or should I leave them be? Thanks Brad
On-Page Optimization | | bradleymiller1480 -
Backlink URL: With or Without WWW?
When it comes to backlinks. Does it matter with or without WWW? For example my website is without WWW and I backlink with WWW, will it still affect my website rank?
On-Page Optimization | | Japracool0 -
How Much Does a Missing www. 301 redirect hurt a business?
We're preparing a report for a potential client, and are trying to figure out a way to estimate rankings gains. One of the major issues is a lack of a 301 redirect for non-www. domains to www. domains. We checked and there's no canonicalization, so it's a clear issue. According to Google, the non-www. links from 8 different domains. The www. version of the website has links from 248 different domains. Nearly all anchor text is branded, as they've never had any SEO work done before. Does anyone have a suggestion for approximating benefits of setting up their .htaccess file correctly? Would the benefits even be that great? We're of course advising additional things, but we just want to be more certain about this step's SEO-boost.
On-Page Optimization | | FlynnZaiger0 -
How do I switch my website to www.mydomain?
I'm having canonical URL problems. I keep trying to set everything to www.mydomain.com, but I'm using wordpress and my site keeps either disappearing completely or giving me an infinite loop error. I've tried changing my main wordpress setting, whether I have canonical URLs turned on, my .htaccess file... Could this be an issue with either my host or my domain registrar? Any ideas how I can fix it?
On-Page Optimization | | lauragee0 -
.us VS .com
In general from what I have experienced a location specific extension such as .co.uk geo-targeted to the same location gives the best results when ranking BUT when I look at results from the US, page after page shows results of .com, surely if my above statement is true then a .us domain extension should rank better then a .com.
On-Page Optimization | | activitysuper0 -
Domain.com and www.domain.com
I recently changed the settings in Google Webmaster Tools so that domain.com and www.domain.com are the same. Several quick questions. About how long will it take for Google to list www.domain.com and stop listing domain.com? The .htaccess file uses a 301 to redirect all domain.com paths.to www.domain.com paths. Now that Google has been informed these two are the same, are the 301 rules to add www necessary? The default page is index.php. so domain.com gets 301 to www.domain.com gets 301 to www.domain.com/index.php. Is this the correct way to do things? Are there SEO consultants who will help on small projects such assist on issues like this? Best,
On-Page Optimization | | ChristopherGlaeser
Christopher0 -
It has been recommended that we remove the number of links in our footer, should we?
We have a pretty user friendly footer with almost an entire site-map on it. It's similar to many e-commerce company footers, and I think it's useful to the user. SEO professionals have recommended that to reduce the number of links on any given page on our site we should compress our footer and only show the headers, thus removing many links. This in my opinion is a disservice to the user and makes the site not look as good, but maybe it's a good idea for SEO to get rid of so many links per page? What do you think? (pic attached) Screen_shot_2011-08-05_at_3.54.53_PM.png
On-Page Optimization | | aran0881 -
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
