Quote:
|
Yeah, a lot of the sites are not well indexed in the search engines, but I wouldn't say they are not worth linking to.
|
sandiegoman, I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to insult you here. That's not my intention.
To rank #1 on Google means you have to be recognized as being the best. So the first step in SEO is to build a site better than any other site that exists in your niche - in terms of quality/quantity of content, originality, and design. Once you got that down, you move on to marketing. People who create half baked sites and try to rake in traffic via link trading and "optimization" is going about things the wrong way. I know because most of my sites are built that way.
Creating the best site on the web for any sizable niche takes time. Even if you spent 10 years in the adult niche, that still averages 20+ days per domain assuming you spent all your days and nights working on your 100 adult domains. No one I know can whip up an authority site in under a month. Just ask any LL owner how much time they invested in their LLs.
Maybe a dozen out of your 100 adult domains are quality sites. But I do not believe a high percentage of them are - unless you got hundreds of people working under you.
Now let me ask you, is "http://www.massivemilkers.com/" the best lacting site on the web? If its not, then why should anyone link to it (without ref codes)?
Does "http://thenewmarket.com/" look like a quality site to you, considering the spammy cross-links to off-topic sites (a real estate site linking out to sites related to penis enlargement, phone videos, San Diego massage)?
You got several sites working the same niche: massivemilkers, 1lactatingbabe.com, lactating-girls.com, amazingmilkers.com, lactationnation.com, lactatingbabes2000.com, radgoods.com - none of them scream quality.
Nothing wrong with that either, except in terms of Google, its better to own one authority site than own a bunch of low-visibility sites working the same niche.