Anyone used Web 2.0 Ranker Citation Submission Service?

[consultant]

Anyone used these guys? Very compelling pricing.

https://web20ranker.com/local-data-aggregator-submission/

 

[JoshuaMackens]

Fascinating! Would love to hear some feedback on these guys.

 

[DMG]

I keep seeing things like this, but it feels a little spammy. I definitely see the value of quickly indexing your citations, though.

Anyone have experience or even just a "take" on this kind of tactic?

 

[Digitaldar]

I'd be willing to put them through a test... if all I did for a local site was to build citations and for another location of the same company, build citations and get them indexed by the above tool... could see if it makes a difference in ranking in the local pack according to Bright Local?

 

[JoshuaMackens]

I might be missing something. Why does it look spammy?

All I can see is something that looks like Moz Local but for less?

 

[DMG]

I might be missing something. Why does it look spammy?

All I can see is something that looks like Moz Local but for less?

Unless I'm misunderstanding this service, it's designed to get citations indexed. If it's a citation builder like bright local, yext, whitespark, etc...different story.

I like to see quick results from my work, and so the pitch I often get for building links to citations is appealing. In theory, it'll index your citations with Google in record-breaking time. Therefore, allowing you to more quickly see (and isolate) the impact citations have had on your SEO.

Such is the appeal of these services, but GSA, SENuke, and tools of the like, are clearly spammy. Not trying to be self righteous but I try to avoid black hat and spammy techniques because I think their days are limited.

But, you also have to be pragmatic. Rand from Moz used to get outranked by black-hatters.

 

[JoshuaMackens]

I think one of us is looking at the wrong landing page:

Local Data Aggregator Submission - Web 2.0 Ranker

 

[Cherie Dickey]

It looks promising, but it's really not that much cheaper than Moz for what you get. In the US, it's $55 for four aggregators. Looks like only one for $75 in Canada. With Moz, it's $99 for those aggregators plus several more higher authority directories - which (I would think) means faster results overall.

I'm also a little leary of the relationship they actually have with the aggregators. They are an API submission service, which isn't quite the same as being a data partner like Moz or BrightLocal.

I guess the only way to know for sure is to test it. It could be really useful for new businesses just starting out with a new NAP, or for those whose budget really doesn't allow for that extra $40 a year.

 

[JoshuaMackens]

It looks promising, but it's really not that much cheaper than Moz for what you get. In the US, it's $55 for four aggregators. Looks like only one for $75 in Canada. With Moz, it's $99 for those aggregators plus several more higher authority directories - which (I would think) means faster results overall.

I'm also a little leary of the relationship they actually have with the aggregators. They are an API submission service, which isn't quite the same as being a data partner like Moz or BrightLocal.

I guess the only way to know for sure is to test it. It could be really useful for new businesses just starting out with a new NAP, or for those whose budget really doesn't allow for that extra $40 a year.

I'm interested because Moz is very strict about how much they allow you to work with your data. Honestly, sometimes it feels like its not even your data. For example, we've added call tracking numbers to Google My Business pages and Moz Local automatically switched the Moz Local listings to the tracking number. Kind of a nuisance but the biggest issue is they will not allow you to manually change it back. Support will tell you that it has to remain that way. Which is kind of ridiculous to me. So we've moved away from Moz Local for our clients that do use call tracking and are exploring other options.

I don't think being a "data partner" is any different in specs from using the API. I would imagine these guys have the same access to the API that Moz Local does. And I don't think they get any special access to make the changes quicker.

But I could be wrong.

 

[DMG]

I think one of us is looking at the wrong landing page:

Local Data Aggregator Submission - Web 2.0 Ranker

Years ago, I hired this company for some editorial link building. I was extremely unimpressed. I'll spare you the details, but let's just say I'd look in another direction before considering this company.

These aggregators look like a great price compared to the bigger names (such as Yext, which now has an option for aggregators). I think price is their thing. If you have budget restrictions, they might be the ones for you. But my clients pay me for a 99%tile level of quality and results. There is no room for experimenting with people who have proven to be unreliable in the past.

I'm pleased with the responsiveness of my rep at Yext. I'm not 100% sure if I'll be using Yext in a year, but for now they seem to be taking their role in my SEO strategy seriously. There are a lot of options out there for citations.

 

[JoshuaMackens]

Years ago, I hired this company for some editorial link building. I was extremely unimpressed. I'll spare you the details, but let's just say I'd look in another direction before considering this company.

These aggregators look like a great price compared to the bigger names (such as Yext, which now has an option for aggregators). I think price is their thing. If you have budget restrictions, they might be the ones for you. But my clients pay me for a 99%tile level of quality and results. There is no room for experimenting with people who have proven to be unreliable in the past.

I'm pleased with the responsiveness of my rep at Yext. I'm not 100% sure if I'll be using Yext in a year, but for now they seem to be taking their role in my SEO strategy seriously. There are a lot of options out there for citations.

Yext submits to aggregators now? All 4?

 

[DMG]

Yext submits to aggregators now? All 4?

Yes, I have this option enabled for all my clients. I'm told it's a new option for agencies. I think it's around $30/mo extra.

Yext is a significant investment in terms of citations. But it seems to be doing fairly well, so far. I just hired a new employee who will be handling Yext. So I might have more info on the effectiveness in a few months.

 

[JoshuaMackens]

So $360 a year, recurring, for aggregators?

Yext's markup is serious. They should be making a ton of money.

 

[DMG]

So $360 a year, recurring, for aggregators?

Yext's markup is serious. They should be making a ton of money.

I have to check the numbers, soon. I think that's the total cost, all citations included. I remember it being cheaper than Moz Local and White Spark when I signed up.

 

[Eric Rohrback]

I'm late to this thread, but I've used them in the past. For data aggregator service, maybe it would be OK, but for their standard profile building service, I would not recommend. All their profiles are built in the Philippines using dummy gmails, which in a few cases have gotten suspended when I tested. At that point you get locked out of the accounts and have no way to access in the future.

They need to tighten up security and do mail hosting from a unique domain like Bright Local does to get this right. The cost is lower than other services, but the time you will need to invest on the phone with them to try and sort that crap out just isn't worth it. You'll end up losing a client or two because of it if you don't catch it quick enough.

 

[Tinerfeno]

I've used these people in the past and the service is sub standard. Lots of typos and the work is outsourced to Asia. The links almost all drop off after a few months so it's a waste of money.
They are US based and I can tell you, the work is really shoddy.
So many cheaper and much better services out there and my advice is that you avoid these people and save yourself a lot of grief.
Overpriced and overrated junk that you should avoid like the plague.

 

[Brock1321M]

I have used them in the past for some white label services and it was extremely poor quality.

 

[Tinerfeno]

I sent $149 to Web 2.0 Ranker for a link but due to their convoluted system, found it hard to place the order so asked them to return the money.

After several attempts to get my money back, I was forced to open a Paypal dispute to make sure I got some attention to the matter.

The owner then told me that I needed to cancel the dispute on Paypal if I wanted a refund but I told him that if it was cancelled, Paypal would not allow it to be reopened if they took my money and walked away so the only protection I had was to keep it open until I got my money back which Web 2.0 Ranker has refused to return.

They’ve given me the most bizarre excuses about the potential for them to pay me twice which is ridiculous because all I want is my money back and if they returned it then the dispute in Paypal would be automatically closed.

I suspect they plan to steal the money and never return it which looks more like a scam to me and it’s awful that we’re expected to have some trust in these types of people.

They’ve even blocked me from communicating with them via email, their platform, and on their Facebook business page.

I also noticed that they do not have a Google business listing, neither is their review feature activated on their Facebook business page. I presume it’s to stop genuine negative reviews from being published in their name which is not right if you are a genuine business.