"All you need is Backlinks" --> THE OLD Lie.

[Caleb Spilchen]

Hi Guys,

Have you heard that lie, "All you need is backlinks".
Well, it's exactly that, it's a lie. Sure, backlinks are
like "votes" to google..

So whenever google see's one of these "votes" they
go ahead and index your website.. But guess what,
there has to be something there for Google to index.

Boy, you don't think they look at the on-page?
Well, they do. Here's some things to think about
on your page. To make the most out of your backlinking.

Hopefully, this helps some people hold there wallet, in tighter,
and stop buying, until the site is ready to actually be promoted.

1) Use The Keyword - Try and use the keyword you will be
targeting with the backlinks, as the first one to be indexed.
Some people will tell you to try and keep them in the H1 tags,
along with H2. I say just have it at the top.

It's also recommended that you use it an x% on your page.

2) Link to Wikipedia - Some tip I read around, that linking
to a wikipedia article on your topic, makes your site look
better to search engines.

3) There's so much more - There's a ton of other things
that you can do for the on-page. Including meta tags
and a ton more. Just look around and you'll learn the best
of doing on-page.

I hope these tips help some of you.

Caleb Spilchen

[Dan Ellenwood]

But guess what, there has to be something there for Google to index. Boy, you don't think they look at the on-page?

Your points are valid, but, I've seen examples of basically blank pages, with absolutely no on-page SEO, rank in the top 3 of Google for a term just because of the quality and number of backlinks. It was a semi-competitive niche example.

Of course, I can't remember where I saw it.

Maybe someone else can help.

I would say on-page is about 10% and good backlinks are 90%.

But I understand your points here, and I agree.

[Caleb Spilchen]

Originally Posted by Dan Ellenwood

Your points are valid, but, I've seen examples of basically blank pages, with absolutely no on-page SEO, rank in the top 3 of Google for a term just because of the quality and number of backlinks. It was a semi-competitive niche example.

Of course, I can't remember where I saw it.

Maybe someone else can help.

I would say on-page is about 10% and good backlinks are 90%.

But I understand your points here, and I agree.

I just think you should be getting the full-value of your backlinks which is why the on-page is so important, it helps your backlinks, they go hand-in-hand.

[backlinksafe]

You have to make sure you on topic with you backlinks to, Don't just leave your links everywhere It will actually hurt you.

[Stephen Root]

Hmm, has anybody actually ever said that Google doesn't value on-page content? They use it to compute the relevance and theme. However what drives Google's algo is link graph so essentially, all you need is backlinks - that's just a fact.

Ranking a blank page solely based on backlinks isn't as easy as it used to be but you can still rank pages without any real text content with only backlinks, just look at any big movie sites that are fully made with Flash. Google can't crawl & compute all types of technologies you can use with modern browsers so they can't rely on-page content too much.

[jazbo]

Utter nonsense.

Originally Posted by backlinksafe

You have to make sure you on topic with you backlinks to, Don't just leave your links everywhere It will actually hurt you.

[thebitbotdotcom]

Every time I have ever seen the argument about backlinks, I gathered, from the context of the discussion, that on-site content and SEO was already in place and was a given. I have never seen a discussion about building links to and driving traffic to a page or site with no optimized content.

[asirius]

Originally Posted by Caleb Spilchen

Hi Guys,

Have you heard that lie, "All you need is backlinks".
Well, it's exactly that, it's a lie. Sure, backlinks are
like "votes" to google..

So whenever google see's one of these "votes" they
go ahead and index your website.. But guess what,
there has to be something there for Google to index.

Boy, you don't think they look at the on-page?
Well, they do. Here's some things to think about
on your page. To make the most out of your backlinking.

Hopefully, this helps some people hold there wallet, in tighter,
and stop buying, until the site is ready to actually be promoted.

1) Use The Keyword - Try and use the keyword you will be
targeting with the backlinks, as the first one to be indexed.
Some people will tell you to try and keep them in the H1 tags,
along with H2. I say just have it at the top.

It's also recommended that you use it an x% on your page.

2) Link to Wikipedia - Some tip I read around, that linking
to a wikipedia article on your topic, makes your site look
better to search engines.

3) There's so much more - There's a ton of other things
that you can do for the on-page. Including meta tags
and a ton more. Just look around and you'll learn the best
of doing on-page.

I hope these tips help some of you.

Caleb Spilchen

1. All you need are backlinks is not a lie, it is true. At least 80% true, because onsite optimisation is just 20% important. Other 80% either you come to the first page or not are Backlinks. I also saw pages ranking for a keyword without any onsite optimisation at all. Just because of backlinks.
2. I tried linking to authority websites and I have no proof yet if it helps. But I got ranked many times without outbound linking to any websites at all and my Page rank is 5
3. You always want to use your keywords in Title of the page and h1 tag and url. Also metatag and metadescription and somewhere in the content. I don't think Your advise to just include it on the top is good

[hitmark]

No one knows for sure, we all walk through darkness. But I think, I read at google's posts, I'm not sure, that we ought to do everything what is natural. So I think every link counts, but all links have no identical value.

[rankinghero]

"3) There's so much more - There's a ton of other things
that you can do for the on-page. Including meta tags
and a ton more. Just look around and you'll learn the best
of doing on-page."

Holy cow... there'so much more.... is that your best 3rd point / tip? mmmm lol.

[rypher21]

a link in wikipidia would be a good idea but this should be done well, because wikipidia removes some links when they find it not good and relevant to the post

[cagliostro]

All i know is that 95% of my competition that beats me, have a crapy website but TONES of backlinks.

So backlinks is worth a lot. Any backlink.

[Briansstocks]

Originally Posted by jazbo

Utter nonsense.

I have to agree. Im a newbie but people can type in CLICK HERE and Adobe will show up.

Im sure on page SEO helps but backlinks are what counts and almost all that counts.

[culvers]

lol... really? You have to have your keyword in the title? wow thanks for sharing that tip.

[JohnMcCabe]

Originally Posted by rypher21

a link in wikipidia would be a good idea but this should be done well, because wikipidia removes some links when they find it not good and relevant to the post

As well they should.

I think the other poster was referring to linking from your site to Wikipedia. In some instances, this may help you with your quality score and theme without linking to possible competitors or places where competitors could advertise.

Some other folks have posted that backlinks are X% of ranking, and stated that as fact. Unless they actually have access to the Google ranking algorithm, they can't know with that degree of certainty. At best, it's an opinion. At worst, either a pure guess or repeating something they heard or read somewhere.

Heck, one poster says the number is 90% and another, 80%. It can't be both...

[cbpayne]

Originally Posted by Caleb Spilchen

It's also recommended that you use it an x% on your page.

Keyword density stopped being an issue a while a go.

2) Link to Wikipedia - Some tip I read around, that linking
to a wikipedia article on your topic, makes your site look
better to search engines.

Nonsense.

Including meta tags

Apart from the title one, all the rest are useless

I hope these tips help some of you.

Where can I get my competitors to contact you for more advice?

[lexilexi]

Hey if you want to be sure, you could do some testing. Put up some blank page that you don't care about, build some links to it and find the truth instead of speculation....

[lexilexi]

If you really want enlightenment, do a google search for "click here"... and then examine the top results in Yahoo Site Explorer.

[Caleb Spilchen]

Hey Guys,

These were just some ideas that I was throwing out there.

I was hoping it would help some people get an idea about on-page.

Anyways, thanks to those people who enlightened me. You guys, helped me out.

Caleb

[Fraggler]

Originally Posted by lexilexi

If you really want enlightenment, do a google search for "click here"... and then examine the top results in Yahoo Site Explorer.

The "click here" example is used so often.

I have to ask, what do you think should rank for "click here"? What is "click here" really about and what is it relevant to?

"Click here" is not a phrase that is common or related to one single subject. It is just a general phrase.

The Google Aglorthim should find no on-site relevance for that term on pretty much any site so it comes back to off-site relevance and authority. Adobe has the most people linking to it using that as anchor text so this is where it builds up its relevance and authority.

If the term was something that was specific to a niche or market then on-site relevance will play a bigger part and off-site relevance will also come into play, both from anchor text and off site content.

From reading some of Google patents my understanding is that Google creates a pool of results based of relevance, it then sorts these sites on quality and authority.

If you do a lot of keyword research you will see heaps of examples of pages with 100's or 1000's of links being beaten by sites with less than 10.

Many internet marketers focus on quantity of links rather than quality because it is very easy to get 1000's of poor quality links on unrelated sites rather than getting decent links on quality related sites. The former works but whose to say the same couldn't be achieved with a fraction of the number of quality links?

[Briansstocks]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

The "click here" example is used so often.

I have to ask, what do you think should rank for "click here"? What is "click here" really about and what is it relevant to?

"Click here" is not a phrase that is common or related to one single subject. It is just a general phrase.

The Google Aglorthim should find no on-site relevance for that term on pretty much any site so it comes back to off-site relevance and authority. Adobe has the most people linking to it using that as anchor text so this is where it builds up its relevance and authority.

If the term was something that was specific to a niche or market then on-site relevance will play a bigger part and off-site relevance will also come into play, both from anchor text and off site content.

From reading some of Google patents my understanding is that Google creates a pool of results based of relevance, it then sorts these sites on quality and authority.

If you do a lot of keyword research you will see heaps of examples of pages with 100's or 1000's of links being beaten by sites with less than 10.

Many internet marketers focus on quantity of links rather than quality because it is very easy to get 1000's of poor quality links on unrelated sites rather than getting decent links on quality related sites. The former works but whose to say the same couldn't be achieved with a fraction of the number of quality links?

I think the point was that it does not matter what is on page if there is enough backlinks. Not saying onpage SEO is worthless, I for sure will do my best to do a good onpage job.

I think your example of sites with many links being beaten by a sight with a few links is not a fair observation.

As a newbie all my research is focused on weak compitition, I mostly run into sites with alot of links ranked lower than a site with a few links because mostly they are comming from the same place and/or the anchor text is not valid for the search term I am using.

Relevancy has been proven to not be a factor worth considering when it comes to inbound links.

Of course Xfactor proved this, and has many followers, There is now a backlinks forum dedicated to this by the Tom guy and the Kyle? guy, sorry dont know how to look and keep posting.

The OP was just trying to be helpfull and remind people to pay attention to onpage SEO. Thanks, Im pretty focused on it myself, every little bit helps.

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Fraggler

o
From reading some of Google patents my understanding is that Google creates a pool of results based of relevance, it then sorts these sites on quality and authority.

That's what PR is all about. Being in that pool, then the final sorting.

Originally Posted by Fraggler

If you do a lot of keyword research you will see heaps of examples of pages with 100's or 1000's of links being beaten by sites with less than 10.

That's why the quality of backlinks is important, not quantity.

Originally Posted by Fraggler

Many internet marketers focus on quantity of links rather than quality because it is very easy to get 1000's of poor quality links on unrelated sites rather than getting decent links on quality related sites. The former works but whose to say the same couldn't be achieved with a fraction of the number of quality links?

Great point.

Parlor tricks like click here and adobe are not proof of anything in SEO.
But these kind of examples work for snake oil salesmen. Matt Cutts blog
results get twisted as well.

Paul

[bay37]

Oh great, another thread about nothing. Seriously? How hard is it to use the search function?

Quality backlinks are good. Rubbish backlinks are good. Mix them up - great. Yey, as if that's not been discussed a million times before.

Same goes for on page seo - it's a given really. Need advice? Do a simple search. Can't find what you need? Then create a new thread.

[paulgl]

Anybody read searchenginewatch? You should.
Are We Over-Engineering the Link Graph? - Search Engine Watch (SEW)

Paul

[ajmorgans]

Yes you are 100% correct about just getting backlinks is a lie. You need to cover the basis first on your site first before you go out and bring backlinks pointing to it or else your dropping time and money down the drain. Overall, you just need to make sure you get the right setup on your site first then go hunting for links that are "keywords" matching the keywords on your promoting page.

[MarkAse]

Valid points of course, but of course no one is saying that you should backlink a blank website...far from it.

I think most people here are saying that you need both backlinks and content, but backlinks are sure a lot easier and take effect more quickly then building content.

That being said, without good content your site won't convert as high of a percentage. (Yes, good content can simply be an outstanding squeeze page)

[connorbringas]

Of course you need more than backlinks. However, if you get tons of backlinks hopefully you get traffic from those links anyway..plus you rank higher organically..

[kposs]

Originally Posted by jazbo

Utter nonsense.

Ditto. Relevance of the site to the linked site is minimal, at best.

[revolver]

Re: Meta Tags

Originally Posted by cbpayne

Apart from the title one, all the rest are useless

Not entirely true IMO.

The meta description does have a use.

I concur that the meta description tag is useless for ranking. Matt Cutt's has officially stated that. However, if written well, it can often (I've found almost always) be used as the Google snippet in the SERPs. Bing uses it for their snippet too.

I would say that having control over how every single page on your website is described for the searcher, is absolutely useful. But maybe that's just me...