Organic Traffic

[FuturoInfo]

Do back links have a direct correlation to the number of organic traffic, regardless of the keywords being ranked?
If they don't, then how come the organic traffic decrease along with the stop of back links activities, despite the keywords are still ranked?
By doing on-page and off-page work, we are getting our keywords ranked in search engines. And due to these ranked keywords, consequently we are getting more organic traffic. During the time we are doing back links, we get both direct and organic traffic.
Ideally, as long as we have the keywords ranked on search engines, we should be able to maintain the momentum of organic traffic at least for a certain period of time, even if we stop doing back links.
However, we are seeing a huge drop in organic traffic along with direct traffic, right after we stop doing the back links.

 

[fisicx]

Hi @FuturoInfo and welcome to ukbf

Without seeing site it’s difficult to answer your question.

But in general, creating backlinks is pointless. Google is only interested in links from relevant and trustworthy sites that add value.

If your ranking and traffic are dropping then you are doing something wrong. You need to employ someone to assess your site and strategies. Or upgrade your membership and get a website review.

 

[fisicx]

I’m now very confused. I’ve looked at your website and it seems you are offering SEO services. Surely you should know backlinks are not an effective SEO technique and haven’t been for a few years.

 

[Birmingham]

Do back links have a direct correlation to the number of organic traffic, regardless of the keywords being ranked?

Yes, they do. But that's a very broad generalisation. It's important to consider the quality, relevance and longevity of those links, else your link-building campaign may seem ineffective, or may do you more harm than good, or may jump from seeming beneficial to seeming useless or detrimental.

we are seeing a huge drop in organic traffic along with direct traffic, right after we stop doing the back links.

This is most likely because your links are vast in number but barely strong & trustable enough for Google to give them the benefit of the doubt; and if you are given the benefit of the doubt, and the trajectory of gaining links is presumed as legitimate, when it all suddenly stops, it is a sign that the links were not naturally obtained in the first place, so the benefit of doubt is revoked, and you may be penalised down to a position worse than a new site with no links. Not only should a static view of your backlink profile appear organic, but its growth over time should appear organic too.

This problem is compounded if your links are obtained through spammy or deceptive means, making them "easy come, easy go".

So I recommend focusing on less links, higher quality per link.

And to avoid disappearing links, if you have the budget, look into acquiring the sites that you want links from.

Also look into maximising your value proposition and optimising your conversion rates, so once people start coming to your site through controversial off-site SEO techniques, you may then have a self-fulfilling prophecy of organic growth from there.

 

[myresellerhome]

May be but you should check your website first.

 

[HFE Signs]

Links for the sake of links are pointless these days, Google is smarter than that.

If you have links in places where people will use them and want to visit your site then they are very valuable as they bring organic traffic for free.

 

[ctrlbrk]

Yet another thread revived needlessly.

Yet another instance of an OP peddling their own self promotion under the disguise of "let's start a debate".

@Ozzy I would recommend that when mods spot these topics they delete them.

As a result of swift deletion the following things will occur

1. There is no chance of a useless topic being revived (such as in this case)
2. Your real users save their time to do something else (not just talking about me: think in terms of how many of your real users spend time each week by checking things that are on UKBF but are actually against UKBF policy, such as this thread)
3. You send a signal to self-promoters that UKBF take its moderation policies seriously
4. The above discourages others self-promoters from doing the same

It's a feedback loop.

 

[HFE Signs]

Yet another thread revived needlessly.

Yet another instance of an OP peddling their own self promotion under the disguise of "let's start a debate".

@Ozzy I would recommend that when mods spot these topics they delete them.

As a result of swift deletion the following things will occur

1. There is no chance of a useless topic being revived (such as in this case)
2. Your real users save their time to do something else (not just talking about me: think in terms of how many of your real users spend time each week by checking things that are on UKBF but are actually against UKBF policy, such as this thread)
3. You send a signal to self-promoters that UKBF take its moderation policies seriously
4. The above discourages others self-promoters from doing the same

It's a feedback loop.

I'm not sure I totally agree, I for one, do like to read comments and learn from people with more experience on such topics

 

[Birmingham]

nobody liked my post but i thought it was worthy of an oscar personally. there's probably not a better answer to that common question on the whole of the internet in terms accuracy, comprehensiveness and ingenuity.

the post that revived the topic seemed to add no value, and the original post was a very common question, but to delete the thread is also to delete the useful posts that other members have put serious effort into. doesn't make sense to me. if the revival is the problem, persecute the one reviving it, not every contributor. what if people loved my answer and linked to it for reference from various sites around the web, or in emails or bookmarks? they would end up with dead links, error pages, not so useful for them or for this site.

ps if this forum were more active there would probably be less revival of old posts (as a percentage of total posts), that's the fault of the forum itself more than anything, when users are just looking for something to contribute to.

also, it's kind of a timeless question and the answer could potentially change over time so a useful update doesn't seem so bad to me, i rarely see threads being locked or updates being criticised on forums like stackoverflow for example.

but i do see the value of browsing freshly started topics. maybe there is or should be a way to sort topics by original creation date so people wanting this don't need to worry about older topics.

 

[ctrlbrk]

I'm not sure I totally agree, I for one, do like to read comments and learn from people with more experience on such topics

but i do see the value of browsing freshly started topics. maybe there is or should be a way to sort topics by original creation date so people wanting this don't need to worry about older topics.

Thanks guys.

I am not advocating for the deletion of valuable content. Nor am I against reviving old threads.

What I am suggesting is that valuable content is given proper focus and credit.

The way you do that is

1) stopping self-promoters in their tracks and
2) consolidate same content into fewer topics

The point I am trying to make is that if mods nip the dodgy threads in the bud, the more valuable content is added to worthy threads.

Of course in this case it's too late because, as you pointed out, other people have added to the thread.

I am absolutely in support of reviving old threads. But let's do that without giving a bump to those who break UKBF rules with subterfuges.

 

[fisicx]

In this thread the OP wasn’t really interested in the answer. They wanted to be able to link drop. Because that failed they left and never returned. So this thread can now be closed.