Is backlink still important for SEO?

[fisicx]

Specially, doing off page SEO tasks are just as building blocks for any particular website.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The stuff on your site are is building block for any SEO campaign.

 

[kezzahayles]

There was a post on Moz the other day about this topic. Basically they studied rankings and the correlation was that inbound links are crucial to rank even the best content for anything remotely competitive.

Actually, edited to say someone posted it above.

Really interesting debate.

I can't agree with this though:

"Probably the strongest ranking factor right now and in the future is User Experience"

Not a chance. Age and backlinks with awful content trumps that tenfold.

 

[fisicx]

There was a post on Moz the other day about this topic.

Moz isn't always as clever as they think they are. They have made some real howlers over the years.

As to what is considered competitive is a whole different discussion.

 

[Tom Porter]

YES - In my opinion it's never been more important. relevant high ranking backlinks will boost your SEO dramatically.

 

[Carl Feldman]

Backlinks are the most important factor no matter what they tell you. Backlinks are like a vote from a website saying yes I know about him. If you we're getting backlinks from wikipedia, new york journal, forbes would that help you over get loads of likes hell yes.

 

[TODonnell]

1. What is 'pbn'?

2. 'Google' is a software program calculating relevance a web page to a particular search query. It has a list of 'signs of quality' and 'signs of spam'. Get the ratio right and you're top of the SERPS. Until the next iteration.

• Google releases an algorithm update;
• Guru figures out the magic formula and publishes it;
• Small businessmen pile in;
• Google notices mediocre sites are rising to the top;
• Google tweaks algorithm, bans a few sites by hand;
• Small businessmen rend their garments.

Meanwhile a site that is gaining links and visits because it answers a major need goes up and stays up because it has a profile that is naturally SEO-friendly. The ignorant owner hires wise SEO guys who make minor tweaks to the site, get a few pertinent backlinks ongoing and bank a fat cheque every month.

I think the best SEO is simply to find places where you can promote your business online, with an ad or a mention: where are your customers looking online? Be there! Then, after a few months, you notice you're going up the listings.

Don't try to follow SEO trends beyond optimising your site for the keywords that will bring you paying customers. Stay far away from cheesy directories or backlink schemes.

The above does not apply if you're going grey-hat or black-hat on a site you're going to churn and burn. People weep bitter tears when they try these tactics on sites they do care about.

 

[HazelC]

You have misunderstood how the Google algorithm works. There are over 200 ranking signals each of which has a value in the overall ranking score. If you have two pages with similar content, structure and other ranking signals equalised then the inbound links will have greater importance. If you have a site that is popular and authoriative in comparison to your competition then the inbound linlks may well have less importance.

It's not one thing or the other, it's a balance. Great content is rewarded with increased visitor interaction, google uses a range of signals to measure this and will rank accordingly.

Agreed with @fisicx - there are loads of ranking factors. I read an SEO MOZ article today that said about link-building in the form of social signals, so yes - it still works but to rank higher on Google you need to do lots of things well and continuously - not throwing stuff everywhere now and again and hoping it will work.

 

[sirearl]

Agreed with @fisicx - there are loads of ranking factors. I read an SEO MOZ QUOTE]

But there only a few that really matter one of them being relevant links from relevant sites.

Reading SEO MOZ can make you go blind.

 

[HazelC]

But there only a few that really matter one of them being relevant links from relevant sites.

Reading SEO MOZ can make you go blind.

It really can make you go blind - I don't doubt that at all

 

[sirearl]

It really can make you go blind - I don't doubt that at all

In my book anyone who askes for credit card details when offering a FREE trial ain't to be trusted.

Besides they is Yanks and think they broke the enigma code ,won the war and sent a man to the moon.

In a pigs eye.

 

[HazelC]

In my book anyone who askes for credit card details when offering a FREE trial ain't to be trusted.

Besides they is Yanks and think they broke the enigma code ,won the war and sent a man to the moon.

In a pigs eye.

That film is superb by the way, just incredible and very moving! lol

 

[websensejim]

Show me a website without inbound links and I'll show you a website without any traffic.

 

[fisicx]

Unless of course they are using adverts or direct marketing and then they can get lots of targeted traffic without any inbound links.

(yes I know an advert is a spoecfic type of inbound link but that's not what this thread is about).

 

[websensejim]

Agreed.

 

[Aqueous]

Backlinks would always be important tiil search engines is here but get backlinks with good unique contents and follow algorithms strictly.

What???

 

[Formations Factory]

Whoops!

Links have always been the major factor in ranking. Until someone comes up with something better, it will remain so.
Matt Cutts is a propagandist, he says what he'd like google to be capable of, don't believe anything he says. Google does manual reviews for a reason...

Listen to the head of Google's web spam team tell you the importance of links:

 

[Carl Feldman]

There was a post on Moz the other day about this topic. Basically they studied rankings and the correlation was that inbound links are crucial to rank even the best content for anything remotely competitive.

Actually, edited to say someone posted it above.

Really interesting debate.

I can't agree with this though:

"Probably the strongest ranking factor right now and in the future is User Experience"

Not a chance. Age and backlinks with awful content trumps that tenfold.

You know your stuff fella lol.. Age and backlinks is the numero uno in ranking.

 

[Mike Marquardt]

Backlinks are still vital to ranking in Google. Other factors are also becoming more important as Google tries to get away from relying so heavily on backlinks. On-page is also very important and so is visitor interaction.

 

[devidweb]

Listen to the head of Google's web spam team tell you the importance of links:

I agree Additionally, you do not need to over think how Google ranks websites. Just think of "quality" all the time. Make quality content, quality website, and quality backlinks and you'll be fine.

 

[Ikkie]

It is still vital for SEO. off course.

 

[Emily Lynch]

Actually Google has over 10,000 ranking signals. (i meant 200 ranking signals * 50 variations which Google uses for each signal)You might need every thing from on-page optimization to back links for improving your search positions.You can't just ignore building the back links for your site.

 

[Ikkie]

Actually Google has over 10,000 ranking signals. (i meant 200 ranking signals * 50 variations which Google uses for each signal)You might need every thing from on-page optimization to back links for improving your search positions.You can't just ignore building the back links for your site.

How many out of them are linked to back link?

 

[RichardRees123]

Back links will always be important, because Google cannot provide all relevant information to users on its own. I think most of the information or contents available on net are being posted by SEO or internet marketers .But while you creating back links follow Algorithms and post unique and relevant contents.

Do not follow Spam sites attempt to game your way to the top of search results through techniques like repeating keywords over and over, buying links that pass Page Rank or putting invisible text on the screen. This is bad for search because relevant websites get buried, and it’s bad for legitimate website owners because their sites become harder to find. The good news is that Google's algorithms can detect the vast majority of spam and demote it automatically.

 

[Ikkie]

Back links will always be important, because Google cannot provide all relevant information to users on its own. I think most of the information or contents available on net are being posted by SEO or internet marketers .But while you creating back links follow Algorithms and post unique and relevant contents.

Do not follow Spam sites attempt to game your way to the top of search results through techniques like repeating keywords over and over, buying links that pass Page Rank or putting invisible text on the screen. This is bad for search because relevant websites get buried, and it’s bad for legitimate website owners because their sites become harder to find. The good news is that Google's algorithms can detect the vast majority of spam and demote it automatically.

Agree with yourselves. Richard

 

[devidweb]

Back-link is important for SEO. Because without backlink you don't get any traffic

 

[PASTRYCHEFBRIAN]

can you explain more about off page seo then using white hat for that?

 

[Karl B]

Hands up who'd like a link from the BBC, Telegraph, Times etc....yeah, everyone would. These would be great backlinks to have because they're likely to drive traffic AND provide a ranking benefit. Backlinks were given a bad name due to spammy agencies/consultants building links that had no relevance on the website they were building.

 

[Karl B]

Back-link is important for SEO. Because without backlink you don't get any traffic

Definitely not true! What about social media, email marketing, PPC?? All require no backlinks but result in lots of traffic