Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Here are seven actual link-building tactics that don't require you to have amazing content:

1. Private blog networks - easily the most powerful "hands free" method of building links right now.  Outsource the writing of 150 word posts for $0.50 to $1.00 each.  Perfect for building deep links and anchor-specific links to sites that already have some domain authority.
2. Guest posting - gives you full control over the content in your posts and the sites you get links from. Allows you to target much higher quality sites than private blog networks but you won't have as much control over anchor text.  Also, not ideal if the site you're linking to is sub par, as your author links are likely to be reviewed.  If your site is legitimate, this is one of the most powerful link building tactics around.
3. Directory links - they still work and can be completely automated.  Use these to build up a base of links to a site.  I automate through a service that lets me schedule these out over an entire year (100 per month).
4. Blog commenting - you can easily outsource it, automate it via Scrapebox if you want, or do it manually.  It depends on your risk aversion and own business morals.  There are simple search patterns you can use to identify dofollow blogs as well.
5. Footer links from WordPress themes / plugins - less obvious but highly effective. I have a site that picked up over 3 million links last year from theme footers ("powered by" links).  If you're smart, you can automate this to vary anchor text on the fly.
6. Forum profile links - easily automated but clearly spam.  If you're concerned about potentially burning a site, I wouldn't use these extensively pointing to your own site.
7. Buy them - not through a network, but creatively.  You can sponsor open source software (can get very high PR links this way) or a meetup group, give to a charity, donate a prize for a community event.  If you do enough community related stuff, you may be able to spin that as a newsworthy story to the local press and nab a link there.

If you combine these 7 tactics, you shouldn't have much trouble ranking.  If your content is awesome, you'll start to accrue natural links once you get the ball rolling.

Hope you find this to be helpful.

There are tools out there that specialize in compiling this kind of data.  My personal favorite is SEMRush, but Spy Fu and Keyword Spy also offer similar services.

If you're looking for a free alternative, you could run the keywords you know through the Google AdWords Keyword Tool and look for additional suggested keywords.  It's not going to be nearly as informative as an SEMRush report would be, but it's a no cost solution.

Hope this helps!

The correct way to handle this (and quite frankly, any javascript functionality) is to build it to work without javascript (keep the pagination), then have the javascript remove the pagination and implement infinite scrolling.  This ensures that visitors with JS disabled get the full experience of the site, search engines can easily crawl your full catalog, and users with JS enabled get the "enhanced" experience you desire from a UX standpoint.

It's not an "either or" scenario.  You can absolutely have an easily indexed site that extensively uses JS.

Your guest posting strategy depends on what your goals are.  If you're just looking to accumulate links, you're much better off distributing across a range of websites.  You'll get better ip diversification, a higher number of linking root domains, and each link will count fully since it's from a unique source. The interlinking of posts that you propose would have a very negligible impact on the flow of authority through the sites you post on.

If your goal is to develop a position of thought leadership or to develop a following from the audience of the sites you're guest posting on, multiple posts is the correct strategy.  This way, you get seen by the same audience over and over again.  If they like what you write, they'll be much more likely to follow you / pursue your content on other sites.  It's basically an exercise in brand awareness -- you need the same people to see your message repeatedly in order to have any impact.

Hope that helps!

No, you don't need relevant links to improve the rankings of your website.  You need links from sites with authority using anchor text variations that include your target keyword.

I could give you hundreds of examples of competitive search results where the sites ranking #1 pull all (or a vast majority) of their links from unrelated sites.  For the sake of brevity, I'll give you a single example that illustrates the point very well.

Do a Google search for pitching machines and you're likely to see pitchingmachines.net as the first result.  This site has an advantage in that it's an exact match domain, but if you explore its link profile you'll see that a huge chunk of their links come from a blog network and almost none of their links come from relevant sites.  Most of the websites they get links from include content covering a wide range of topics.

As to potential harm to your site later, I'd exercise some caution.  My personal rule of thumb is that if it's a site I can't afford to get banned (a client's site or a real business of mine), I only build links I'd feel comfortable explaining to Google.  If you're not afraid of a potential ban and just want to rank and bank as much as you can quickly, then don't worry about it.

Yes, you could you damage your SEO efforts with a poorly implemented widget campaign.  Done correctly, it could provide a huge boost to your rankings.  If I were you, I would:

• Avoid overusing an important anchor text term if you're taking a simple approach to the widget -- you're better off with a URL link than an exact match term if the widget will have broad distribution.
• Create a feature within the widget that limits the number of pages on the site the anchor text is displayed on (only the homepage of a site, perhaps) so that you don't end up with a profile full of only sitewides.
• Configure the widget to vary anchor text based on the page it's embedded on. You can grab the URL of the page (or the time of access if you prefer) and use that to seed a random number that correlates to anchor text variants.  You could also potentially alter the page that's being linked to, which would keep it more natural.  Just cache that data so that the specific page gets the same anchor text and destination repeatedly.
• You could extend the last idea for greater flexibility by having the widget make a call to your server to get the anchor text to use.  Have it cache it for a defined period of time, so that you can later adjust your anchor text distribution if needed.
• Potentially have the widget vary its own footprint (insert random class and id names that aren't used, add extra markup like superfluous divs, change the position of your link slightly, etc) -- this would increase the likelihood that each instance of the link would be considered unique.

With any of these options, you should be clear about what the widget links to / how it links so that you don't end up with upset users.  I'd also recommend providing an easy option for people to disable the link if they don't want it there.

Hope that helps.

eppie

Links from more authoritative sites are more important for improving rankings than links from related sites.  There are tons of examples of sites that rank well that have almost no relevant links.  One such example that illustrates this is pitchingmachines.net, which currently ranks #1 for the term pitching machine.

While this site has the benefit of being an exact match domain, its link profile is full of links from sites that are unrelated.  70% of their live links come from a paid blog network where the sites cover a wide range of topics (but all have PR), 5% are from article submissions (again, sites that aren't topically related), 4% are blog comments and another 3% are blogroll listings (from unrelated sites).  That's 82% of their links coming from sites that aren't topically relevant.

Another 6.5% of their links are forum profiles, web directory submissions, sidebar links, and links lists.  That means that at best, roughly 10% of their links are legitimate contextual links from related sites.  In reality, it's less than that, as most of those links appear to be from another blog network -- I just haven't been able to identify which one yet.

Is there risk in this approach? You bet.  If Google decided to stop allowing the blog network they're getting links from to pass authority, the rankings would tank.  Worse yet, if Google decided to penalize sites getting these types of links, they may never be able to recover their rankings.  Other than the blog network links, though, I think the risk is minimal.  Blog comments, directory submissions, blogroll links... those are all types of links legitimate sites might be expected to have.

So, don't stress out too much about obtaining relevant links.  Tons of sites rank without them.

Hyperbolic or not, it's a service that actually answers the OP's question. I don't believe he asked for a debate about the ethics of spun content or link networks -- he asked where he can drop links without paying a monthly fee.  ALN fits the bill.

It's fine to caution against the dangers of such an approach -- and there certainly are some -- but I think it's also important to actually answer the question.

I'm no fan of spun content and I don't think blog networks should be nearly as effective as they are at manipulating rankings... but I'm also not going to pretend that stuff I dislike doesn't work.

Links are website fuel.  A fueled up Pinto can beat an unfueled Formula 1 car in a race, so from my perspective, link building is always an SEO priority.  You can rank a page with poor to mediocre on-page optimization if you have enough high quality links pointing to it.

Put your effort into acquiring links and make sure you have the on-page basics covered (keyword in title tag, meta description, h1 tag, page copy).

Within Analytics, go to Standard Reporting > Content > Events.

Yes, it's possible to outrank Wikipedia, .gov sites, and about.com -- the key is that you want to target terms where these sites have very few links pointing directly to the ranking page.  If they are ranking exclusively based upon their domain authority, but the pages themselves aren't inherently authoritative, they're much easier to surpass.

Even if those pages do get links pointed to them, it's not an impossible task -- you just have to create something really exceptional and pull in a lot of links.  Do a Google search for family history or genealogy and you'll see Wikipedia knocked down the SERPs by more commercial sites.

Also, as Alan noted if the term is one that will have a mix of informational and commercial searches, being below Wikipedia won't matter at all.  The key is to be the first site listed that's relevant to your target audience's search intent.

Good luck if you decide to pursue the terms!

Ahrefs and Majestic SEO both track historical link acquisition, though the reliability of this information isn't the greatest given that they're reporting when they found the link, not when it was actually created.  Obviously, Google has more resources to crawl the web and would find the link sooner than these services would.  Despite this problem, it should still be enough to give you a rough feel for when a large chunk of links were created.

Trust badges, live chat, and toll-free numbers won't improve your rankings but should enhance the trust a user places in your brand, thereby increasing the potential for conversion.

On-page optimization is the price of entry into the SEO competition -- it sounds like you've squared away the basics (title tag, meta description, h1 tag, used the keyword in your content, included related words and phrases).  If that's the case, you're likely being outpaced in off-page factors.

Open Site Explorer, Majestic SEO, or ahrefs should all be capable of giving you a glimpse into whether or not you're competitive from an authority standpoint. In order to pass your competitors, you're going to have to build links.  You can leverage an export from any of these tools to find the links you can duplicate (directory listings, industry-specific lists, etc). That should let you close the gap considerably (and perhaps pass them).

The "Future of Link Building" webinar referenced by Jamie is an excellent source for some additional link building approaches.

This is pretty rampant and shouldn't be all that surprising.  There's a great video called "First Follower: Leadership Lessons from Dancing Guy" (can't recommend it enough) that illustrates why people do this.  It's not enough to be compelling / interesting.  People need to feel safe that you are worth following... that they won't feel like idiots for thinking your stuff is good.

On Twitter, your Follower:Following ratio is a quick way to gauge value.  Sure, it's a flawed measure that's easily gamed, but it's something that inherently feels like it should work... and it definitely influences how many people follow you and who will follow you.  "Fake it 'til you make it" applied to social media.

Yes, you can track revenue to a specific keyword using Google Analytics.  The most thorough way to do this is to implement e-commerce tracking.  Google's documentation for this process is here: http://code.google.com/apis/analytics/docs/tracking/gaTrackingEcommerce.html#Guidelines

That allows you to record both the transaction totals and the specific items included in the order.  If that's more info than you need, you can use event tracking to dynamically set a goal value.  To do that, you would just add this line of code on your checkout confirmation page:

_gaq.push([``'_trackEvent'``, 'Cart'``, 'Checkout'``, 'Success'``, 40]);

Just dynamically insert the cart value (as an integer) where 40 is in the code and that will record a new event in Google Analytics that includes the value of the order.

Then, within Google Analytics, set up goal tracking based on the occurrence of an event (Cart Checkout Success).  When you configure the goal, make sure you select "Use the actual Event Value" for the "Goal Value" option.