So - Linkbuilding - is it still worth it?

[zigojacko]

Unless of course you believe everything that Matt Cutts says, and follow the Google guidelines to the letter, in which case your site might as well be penalised, as you will most likely never rank for anything anyway.

Not really.

Google say don't worry about them and concentrate on providing value to your customer. That should be what every business aims for anyway.

Sure, a site has to be built and structured correctly but that should be the case anyway whether the owner is thinking about rankings or not.

 

[That Bates Girl]

Unless of course you believe everything that Matt Cutts says, and follow the Google guidelines to the letter, in which case your site might as well be penalised, as you will most likely never rank for anything anyway.

What is it that you think Matt Cutts is lying about?

Lyds

 

[ZeroDouble]

What is it that you think Matt Cutts is lying about?

Lyds

Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is BS to create F.U.D. and push business owners away from SEO and towards adwords.

 

[zigojacko]

Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is BS to create F.U.D. and push business owners away from SEO and towards adwords.

Yawn!

What a load of tosh! Yet another conspiracy theorist.

 

[That Bates Girl]

Pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth is BS to create F.U.D. and push business owners away from SEO and towards adwords.

Can you give us a specific example?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

While G is one big snooper, I wonder how you think G can tell where non google traffic comes from...? How G would know how much someone spends on your site?

Links are something that G can easily count. The difficulty (for G) is how to decide if these links are natural or not.

As a marketing expert I thought you would understand. Thank god I don't use your services

If you look at analytics' you will see where all traffic to a site comes from, you would also understand if you use Adwords that it can be set up to show sales value

So the question remains why would anyone use links as a source of ranking when they have far better data available, it's not rocket science you use the best data. Do you not think Google can check how often a link has been used to judge it's relevance anyway

 

[Annoying Donkey]

If you look at analytics' you will see where all traffic to a site comes from, you would also understand if you use Adwords that it can be set up to show sales value

Newsflash. Not all websites use G analytics...

So the question remains why would anyone use links as a source of ranking when they have far better data available, it's not rocket science you use the best data.

So you think G should only rank the minority of sites that use G's own analytics...? Otherwise, I repeat how do you think G can collect this 'better data'?

Do you not think Google can check how often a link has been used to judge it's relevance anyway

'usage' of a link has no relationship to relevance. How would G tell usage of a given link if their analytics are not on either site...?

The original algo (based on counting links) gave far better results than any other search engine, which really says it all... All G have done since is discard some links due to arbitrary criteria. G still counts links as it's basic criteria, and it's still than main ranking factor...

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Out of interest - How does a business owner distinguish between a 'good' link builder and a 'bad' one?

You can get an indication from past work, but it's only an indicator. Poor link building can get you rankings, however, until G hammers them, you won't know for sure. If a site has survived the last few G updates, then you can have some confidence that it will survive future updates. But, of course that cannot be guaranteed.

I'd agree with ZeroDouble that recommendations are the correct starting point. With a recommendation you can at least evaluate the recommender.

I'd tend to avoid anyone who leaps into offering 'packages' of x links per month without actually discovering (at the very least) who your customers are and why they buy from you...

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Newsflash. Not all websites use G analytics...

So you think G should only rank the minority of sites that use G's own analytics...? Otherwise, I repeat how do you think G can collect this 'better data'?

'usage' of a link has no relationship to relevance. How would G tell usage of a given link if their analytics are not on either site...?

The original algo (based on counting links) gave far better results than any other search engine, which really says it all... All G have done since is discard some links due to arbitrary criteria. G still counts links as it's basic criteria, and it's still than main ranking factor...

Very poor understanding of what sort of data they can collect each day if you do not understand the vast data they acquire each day and all of it factual, it's not about if you use Adwords etc but the massive data that passes through their computers.

I cannot believe you really believe that of all the data passing through to ignore it and use a easily manipulated set of data that 90% of the computing world fakes

It may earn you a few quid selling the links, but please don't believe that's what Google or Bing use for ranking its a insult to intelligence

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Very poor understanding of what sort of data they can collect each day

Well please do educate me...

 

[ZeroDouble]

Can you give us a specific example?

I could give you plenty, but what would be the point? With no conclusive way to prove one way or the other, we would just end up going around in circles anyway.

 

[zigojacko]

I could give you plenty, but what would be the point? With no conclusive way to prove one way or the other, we would just end up going around in circles anyway.

There is pretty conclusive evidence that ethical marketing does work and does deliver results though - that's why decent agencies deliver decent results that help businesses grow. And this is pretty much the bottom line of what Matt Cutt's says.

You were the one that said everything he says is BS hence the request to provide a specific example.

 

[That Bates Girl]

I could give you plenty, but what would be the point? With no conclusive way to prove one way or the other, we would just end up going around in circles anyway.

Not necessarily - If you can give an example of what you think is BS, why you think it's BS, and what you think the reality is then we can see what you are basing your standpoint on. Otherwise, we're just left with you saying "trust me".

Seriously, I'm open to persuasion, and I'm sure that other people reading the thread would appreciate some help to cut through the fog too.

Lyds

 

[steveelles]

The question as to whether links are still effective in your search engine position is more to do with exploring whether, what is correctly regarded as, an "in game cheat" still has any potency. It is good to see that a large number of people are upset by those who still want to cheat the system - especially when it is so easy to optimise properly.
A discussion thread like this is not going to reach any conclusions because there are two radically opposed approaches that cannot coexist.
I personally believe that if you are still in the business of link building (non genuine links) then you are a liability to your client. But if all you care about is making some quick money then it is clearly a service that you can sell profitably. If you care about long term business relationships and the bigger picture then ethics go a long way.

 

[zigojacko]

I personally believe that if you are still in the business of link building (non genuine links) then you are a liability to your client. But if all you care about is making some quick money then it is clearly a service that you can sell profitably. If you care about long term business relationships and the bigger picture then ethics go a long way.

Here here.

And this is where link acquisition and link bait comes in. Creative 'link building' (if we have to use this term) and the provision of awesome content that is naturally linked to.

This is the difference between quality and the 90% dross that is all most 'link builders' know how to do.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Here here.

And this is where link acquisition and link bait comes in. Creative 'link building' (if we have to use this term) and the provision of awesome content that is naturally linked to.

This is the difference between quality and the 90% dross that is all most 'link builders' know how to do.

So do tell me how people find your 'link bait' if there are no links to your content...? Give me any example of a new site that has ranked for any significant term without any links being built.

This is the 'build it and they will come' attitude...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with building links. It's basic marketing - putting your message out there, so people know where to find you...

It's called the web for a reason...!

 

[zigojacko]

So do tell me how people find your 'link bait' if there are no links to your content...? Give me any example of a new site that has ranked for any significant term without any links being built.

This is the 'build it and they will come' attitude...

There is absolutely nothing wrong with building links. It's basic marketing - putting your message out there, so people know where to find you...

It's called the web for a reason...!

I didn't say anything about not building links...

 

[That Bates Girl]

So do tell me how people find your 'link bait' if there are no links to your content...?

Well...
You could build a mailing list of people who are happy for you to email them
You could have a bunch of people subscribing to the RSS feed for your blog
You could share the content via Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, Pinterest, etc

None of that activity is (directly) going to have an affect on your ranking, and none of it requires a 'linkbuilder'.

Lyds

 

[Annoying Donkey]

You could build a mailing list of people who are happy for you to email them

So how do they find my mailing list to sign up...?

 

[ZeroDouble]

There is pretty conclusive evidence that ethical marketing does work and does deliver results though - that's why decent agencies deliver decent results that help businesses grow. And this is pretty much the bottom line of what Matt Cutt's says.

Are you two joined at the hip or something - I keep talking to her and you keep answering?

BTW we get it, YOU'RE NOT A SPAMMER!

Not necessarily - If you can give an example of what you think is BS, why you think it's BS, and what you think the reality is then we can see what you are basing your standpoint on. Otherwise, we're just left with you saying "trust me".

Seriously, I'm open to persuasion, and I'm sure that other people reading the thread would appreciate some help to cut through the fog too.

Lyds

Nice try, but I'm not going to bite.

 

[Tellerman]

If you want your website to be indexed regularly and appear near the top of search results you will need some links, but they need to be the right ones and you need to balance links with other signals too.

Google is trying to work out which links to websites are low quality and they don't just ignore these links anymore - they can actually penalise your website for them. If you build poor quality links and Google notices they might drop your website from their search results entirely. The frustrating thing is that they are not very good at identifying this yet - within the same industry some spammy link building has been identified and sites penalised but others, who have done some really bad stuff, have escaped and still rank well. So Matt Cutts does say a lot of things that ideally they are trying to implement 100% but in reality the implementation is pretty patchy. It’s worth considering what he says but you do need to apply a reality filter over the top of it!

So you can take a very big risk and do some low quality link building and hope you slip through the net or decide to take a longer term, less risky approach. I would recommend the second option.

You can get links on sensible high quality business directories like yell, hot frog and free index as well as relevant industry specific websites. This should mean your site is indexed and visible to Google. You can then look at some high quality placement opportunities on blogs, online magazines and the like. But do it slowly and carefully.

How do you know if an SEO company is getting you decent links? Its actually pretty easy - ask to see some example links they have got in the last month for other clients and ask if you can contact their clients for references. In terms of the example links they provide, are they on websites that look professional, where proper English is used? The websites should not be covered in ads and the ads that are there should be for similar businesses to yours. The websites should not have any adverts or links to escort or drug websites - check any links in comments too. The golden rule is the websites should be ones that real people, interested in the topic would read and that appear to be regularly updated by a real human. A second test is that the SEO company should not just talk about link building, they should be talking to you about one site things, social media and analytics. If they only want to talk link building – avoid them. You should keep a very close eye on their activity for the first week or month – even consider making them get approval for every link from you initially. Once you trust them you can loosen the reigns a bit.

Social Media and Facebook Although many of the links are nofollow and redirect using JS and other things, experts have tested social media links on new domains. They do have a positive impact on website performance. For Google results Google plus activity has (unsurprisingly) the best impact on search position but Facebook is effective too. Facebook is also great at getting real customers on your website so focusing on that is a good strategy.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Well please do educate me...

You sell yourself as a Online Marketing Consultant and you have no idea of what sort of data Google can acquire from its computers, Not very Impressive

For info we have been going 10 years and never indulged in link building, apart from about 12 links set up 10 years ago to our suppliers, first page natural listings for many items, No idea if we have any links or not, just who buys what we sell

 

[That Bates Girl]

So how do they find my mailing list to sign up...?

Magic, obviously.

Or...

they've come across your site after seeing you on:
twitter
facebook
pinterest
linkedin
a forum like this

or maybe someone has recommended your site to them, or forwarded a copy of your newsletter to them.

or maybe you got some really great coverage in a paper or on a blog because you're good at what you do.

or, yes, maybe they clicked an adwords advert.


You do know that there's more than one way to encourage people to come to a website don't you? Not all traffic has to pass through a search engine.

Lyds

 

[That Bates Girl]

Nice try, but I'm not going to bite.

You're leaving us with "trust me" then?

Lyds

 

[Annoying Donkey]

Magic, obviously.

I use that a lot

You do know that there's more than one way to encourage people to come to a website don't you? Not all traffic has to pass through a search engine.

Yes, I am aware and indeed I have been doing a lot of work on non G traffic for the last couple of years... OP was asking if link building was worthwhile for ranking in G. He/she was not asking how to get traffic by other means. I am saying, that if you want to rank in G, then you need links. Absolutely no question...

And when it comes down to it, all of your suggestions are links of some sort or other... ergo, links are essential

 

[That Bates Girl]

Yes, I am aware and indeed I have been doing a lot of work on non G traffic for the last couple of years...

Oh good, I'm glad you were just pretending to be stupid when you asked how someone would find their way to your website if you didn't do any linkbuilding

OP was asking if link building was worthwhile for ranking in G. He/she was not asking how to get traffic by other means. I am saying, that if you want to rank in G, then you need links. Absolutely no question...

And when it comes down to it, all of your suggestions are links of some sort or other... ergo, links are essential

Aah, hang on, I might have to take my last statement back. I was presuming, as you work in online marketing, that you understood the difference between linkbuilding, (as a technical SEO activity, to help improve ranking) and building links (as a very basic bit of html coding, to help people navigate around the web).

Now that it's clear that you don't understand the distinction, the rest of your comments on this thread make a lot more sense. I apologise for making assumptions about your level of technical knowledge.

Lyds

 

[zigojacko]

I am saying, that if you want to rank in G, then you need links. Absolutely no question...

I actually disagree with this, you can rank for a lot without any links if you have a well built site with decent, relevant content.

I come across loads of examples where a site sites top for a search query despite having no or almost no inbound links.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

I actually disagree with this, you can rank for a lot without any links if you have a well built site with decent, relevant content.

I come across loads of examples where a site sites top for a search query despite having no or almost no inbound links.

OK I'll concede that. However links are still the most powerful ranking signal by far.

 

[ZeroDouble]

You're leaving us with "trust me" then?

Lyds

Ok, I'll humor you....

I know how much you love your press releases, so here's an article from Search Engine Land earlier this year.

 

[Annoying Donkey]

There was also the one where Mr Cutts claimed negative SEO was not possible, then subsequently he admitted it was indeed possible...

 

[That Bates Girl]

Ok, I'll humor you....

I know how much you love your press releases, so here's an article from Search Engine Land earlier this year.

Interesting, thanks. I'll have a read.

Lyds

 

[ZeroDouble]

There was also the one where Mr Cutts claimed negative SEO was not possible, then subsequently he admitted it was indeed possible...

Yea, was going to use that one, but I couldn't find it all documented in one place, and I thought that the press release one was more fitting anyway.

It was also a bit suspect the case of him stating that large sites wont automatically do better in the SERPs, when a month earlier he had been on twitter asking for details of small sites that webmasters think should rank higher.

 

If you wait for natrual links.

You will be waiting till hell freezes over.

Google el at are algo's they have no way to know if a site is good quality apart from a little maths on links and visitors.

P.S if you rely on analytics please be aware that it can under read the amount of traffic coming to your site by up to 30% or maybe more.

Gubbins blimey that a bit of an antique.

 

[WebMeUp]

you can rank for a lot without any links if you have a well built site with decent, relevant content.
.

Yes, you can.

If you’ve optimized your tags, content, formatting, keyword proximity, site map, etc.; if your site has a well-organized structure and outstanding content, it is possible to rank high having few or no links.

But note that it is possible only if competition in your niche is very low, your keywords are not very competitive or your competitors have poor-quality, spammy backlinks. In all other cases you definitely need links. It's impossible to outrank big niche guys, who have tons of high-quality powerful backlinks if you have nothing but a neat site and good content.

At the moment Google isn't that smart to evaluate quality of your content. The search engine still needs quality signals to rank your pages. And the most important signal for now is links.

So backlinks do play an important role and are vital for SEO. Period.

P.S. Just as a side-note, if you have great content, people will spread the word about it, which will result in more links pointing to your site, and consequently its better rankings. So all things in SEO are interconnected.

 

[amitaharij]

Hi,

Link Building techniques is always worth, do not hesitate to follow it! Try to get high quality backlinks from top domains for better results.

Hope it helps you!

 

[Alby10]

With the recent changes in G, there has been a lot of confusion as to what is worthwhile and what is not. There is no doubt, as mentioned by several, that social signals are becoming increasingly important. Link building will always have its place, all that has changed is the way and type of links obtained. Themed or niche specific links on good quality sites, coupled with social media interactivity would work well.

 

[logicfusion]

I actually disagree with this, you can rank for a lot without any links if you have a well built site with decent, relevant content.

I come across loads of examples where a site sites top for a search query despite having no or almost no inbound links.

Sure, you can rank for something really obscure without links, Google has to serve something up if there is nothing else to offer.

Can you provide an example for a site with decent content, ranking for anything remotely competitive without backlinks please?

 

[zigojacko]

Sure, you can rank for something really obscure without links, Google has to serve something up if there is nothing else to offer.

Can you provide an example for a site with decent content, ranking for anything remotely competitive without backlinks please?

No, it doesn't even have to really obscure actually... Sure, if you're talking about generic competitive terms such as loans, insurance, holidays and the such like, that's going to require some significant work. But back in the real world, we're not all targeting generic terms unless we have multi-million pound budgets available.

And let's be clear here, it's pretty difficult to find any domain with absolutely 0 backlinks unless the website and domain is brand new. Even domain's with no active link acquisition ever been carried out can still acquire almost meaningless links from the likes of domain crawler and analysis sites.

But even with no link acquisition and just some auto gained handful of links from business directories or analysis tools, there are plenty of site's ranking top competitive enough terms (i.e are actively searched for).

 

[sirearl]

OK I'll concede that. However links are still the most powerful ranking signal by far.

For anything competative I tend to agree.

Anyone using search engine land as a source of knowledge is probably on a hiding to nothing.

 

[ShellWell]

Link building is the best strategy if you follow all instruction and guidelines i.e. use unique and useful content, relevancy etc.
Social media always help you to improve presence of your website and also it make sure that you always connect with your audience. You audience always follow you and get all updates about your site.
So both have there own importance, and you use both as per your requirement and strategy.