Is it easier to increase your rankings by a) building solid quality backlinks to your site or b) building tons of spam links to your competitors' sites?
If the answer is b), which I suspect it might due to reading some comments here citing fiverr examples, then allowing negative SEO is decreasing the quality of search results.
Also, my guess is where the damage is really done is w/ long tail searches. That's when I almost always encounter random, irrelevant, spammy sites - when I search for something very specific in Google.
This reminds me of a product features framework I saw once. It mapped features to a 2x2, which categorized features into 4 buckets. The lead bullets were considered "table stakes" (core features that were necessary and everyone had) and silver bullets are probably "fool's gold" (features that are distinctive, but don't necessarily drive adoption).
Sure. I'm working on a startup that's a marketplace for corporate business documents (e.g. business frameworks, financial models, presentation templates). The marketplace is based on the principle that companies/employees waste a lot of time/effort/$ recreating the same documents and redoing the same analyses.
I'd like to reach out to experienced professionals and offer them the proposition of joining my marketplace as sellers. I would like them to have worked for 5+ yrs, so they have the skills and business insights to build quality, relevant documents. I think my value proposition is more attractive to unemployed folks, since they're in need of money and have time on hand to create documents.
This is pretty cool. I'm playing around w/ different backlink structures. It seems if you link back to a tier 1 link, it will boost your PR. Is this true in practice?
I still use a resume. In my opinion, if I were hiring a developer, if the person doesn't spend the minimal effort of sending an updated resume, it shows lack of interest on his part. Providing additional links would be a great supplement, but I can't see that as a pure replacement.