59 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
59 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Which backlink is better? A Relevant PR-2 or a Non relevant PR-3/4?

by Arav
51 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I often see that people emphasize on just getting PR-3/4+ Do-follow backlinks i.e. Quality backlinks. But I'm finding it hard to find such backlinks.
But I could manage some Relevant PR-2 sites from where I may acquire backlinks.

So, I'm in a fix.Because, after the recent Web Spam update, Google is penalizing Low Quality backlinked sites. So, will such low PR site will be counted the same and my site will get penalized? Also, such PR-2 backlink will make any contribution for improving SERP?

And, backlinks from Non-English sites are BAD?
#backlink #pr2 #pr3 or 4 #relevant
  • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
    Exactly the opposite..

    If you have too many of these higher quality PR3/4 links you could do more damage than having PR0 links. Lets face it, the web for the most part is made up of PR0 pages..

    The majority of your links need to be PR0 and be relevant.. with a few higher quality links. With non English they are OK but just not too many, I have a site with loads of blogroll links from Chinese sites and it's doing OK.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6310340].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JSProjects
      Originally Posted by dmtaylor247 View Post

      Exactly the opposite..

      If you have too many of these higher quality PR3/4 links you could do more damage than having PR0 links. Lets face it, the web for the most part is made up of PR0 pages..

      The majority of your links need to be PR0 and be relevant.. with a few higher quality links. With non English they are OK but just not too many, I have a site with loads of blogroll links from Chinese sites and it's doing OK.
      Wow, that's a new one. Too many quality backlinks can penalize your site? Sorry, but I 100% disagree with you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311167].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
        Originally Posted by JSProjects View Post

        Wow, that's a new one. Too many quality backlinks can penalize your site? Sorry, but I 100% disagree with you.
        It depends what you define as "quality backlinks"
        A natural backlink profile is not made up of 400 PR4/5/6 links

        I think you need a nice mixture of lower quality links and higher quality links, most of them being aimed towards your internal pages and with a relevancy of at least 50%.

        There was a good case study I saw breaking down the domain authority and/or page authority of the linking root domains/pages and there was a definate footprint of a site that had a greater volume of high pagerank links and higher pagerank links than natural sites, so more 4/5/6/7 and less 0/1/2/3 in greater quantity.

        It's already been estabilished that this could be a signal Google use to track and devalue paid links.

        It's something I'm taking into consideration now when link building... i.e; If I bought a bunch of high pagerank homepage links, I would probably mix them up with pr0/1 bookmarks, forum sigs and a few web 2.0 from domains with varying domain authority.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6313005].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Warrior Roy
    Links from sites within your own niche are very important. As dmtaylor247 says, relevant PR0 links are very good. Most of mine are like that.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6310355].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GoBlog
    Relevant backlink much better even it's only PR 0 than high PR site but not relevant at all and non-English site it's depend on what your content is, if your site is on german language then you'll need backlink from German language site to keep your backlink relevancy.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6310359].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Arav
      Originally Posted by GoBlog View Post

      non-English site it's depend on what your content is, if your site is on german language then you'll need backlink from German language site to keep your backlink relevancy.
      Well said.
      Signature

      Actual High PR(3-6), Do-follow,Low OBL,Unique Domain,SPAM Free, Anchor Text allowed, Mostly Auto Approved Blog List Package (30 Links including AA .edu) for Sale. Only 10 Packages. PM me for details.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311016].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Petter28
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311063].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Bit offtopic but it's important to also look at the Domain Authority, you can find these stats in Open Site Explorer
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311127].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mantasmo
    One that sends visitors to your site.
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311243].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author scottmacair
      Personally i'd go for the relevant PR 2 over a PR 3/4 in non related content but it depends on the content. If the site is not related to your your niche but the link is relevant to the content on the page then go for the higher PR.
      Signature
      Affplaybook - Private Affiliate Marketing Forum
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311642].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Arav
        Originally Posted by scottmacair View Post

        If the site is not related to your your niche but the link is relevant to the content on the page then go for the higher PR.
        I think in the case where the main domain isn't related but the individual page is, it'll pass less juice compare to the related niche domain.
        Actually I haven't a clear understanding that by what parameters, search engine determines the 'Relevancy'? Domain name, On page URL, Keyword density of the page...?
        Signature

        Actual High PR(3-6), Do-follow,Low OBL,Unique Domain,SPAM Free, Anchor Text allowed, Mostly Auto Approved Blog List Package (30 Links including AA .edu) for Sale. Only 10 Packages. PM me for details.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312101].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jwmann2
        Don't worry about page rank unless it's a page rank 0. Only link to other websites with a ranking of at least 1. You should try and get a couple of links on as many websites as possible; how many websites link to yours is part of the algorithm in determining your website's own page rank. But if you are trying to draw targeted traffic, only get backlinks from related websites.
        Signature
        MLB Ballparks|NHL Arenas|NBA Arenas|NFL Stadiums
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6317872].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Justin Says
    In my opinion, I would never go for non-related backlinks.. If you want to be "real" and not trying to trick the search engines, relevant content/backlinks are the way to go.

    I mean come on.. why in the heck are we just building backlinks to our sites that don't even support what our site is about? That's considered spamming and in my opinion it's just dumb.

    We should be building backlinks just the same as we are building traffic. Would you build traffic from a source that was totally unrelated to your topic and get 100 viewers or build traffic from a related source and get 50 viewers?

    Think about it.
    Signature

    My name is Justin Lewis. My digital marketing company has been in business for over 10 years with multiple six-figure years. We do provide a premium web design service.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6311746].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Arav
      Originally Posted by Justin Lewis View Post

      In my opinion, I would never go for non-related backlinks.. If you want to be "real" and not trying to trick the search engines, relevant content/backlinks are the way to go.
      Yes, logical thinking. For being 'Real', relevancy is essential.

      Originally Posted by Justin Lewis View Post

      That's considered spamming and in my opinion it's just dumb.
      Here I've some confusions.
      Firstly, if Non-Relevant links are considered as 'Spam' & 'Dumb', then why people try to get Backlinks from a .edu & .gov sites? I think, such relevant backlinks are very rare.

      Secondly, as your profile says, you've handled a lots of sites. So, have you ever tested this for any of the sites? Whether Non-Relevant backlins causing penalty to a site or not? Especially, after the latest 'WebSpam' update?
      Thanks
      Signature

      Actual High PR(3-6), Do-follow,Low OBL,Unique Domain,SPAM Free, Anchor Text allowed, Mostly Auto Approved Blog List Package (30 Links including AA .edu) for Sale. Only 10 Packages. PM me for details.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312169].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Justin Lewis View Post

      In my opinion, I would never go for non-related backlinks.. If you want to be "real" and not trying to trick the search engines, relevant content/backlinks are the way to go.

      I mean come on.. why in the heck are we just building backlinks to our sites that don't even support what our site is about? That's considered spamming and in my opinion it's just dumb.

      We should be building backlinks just the same as we are building traffic. Would you build traffic from a source that was totally unrelated to your topic and get 100 viewers or build traffic from a related source and get 50 viewers?

      Think about it.
      Most build links to rank in the search engines, that does drive relevant traffic so the source where the link is doesn't necessarily has to be relevant. We all know it's not easy to find relevant links all the time so we grab anything we can to rank, as long as it's not too spammy obvious and preferably with PR/DA.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312654].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Justin Says
        Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

        Most build links to rank in the search engines, that does drive relevant traffic so the source where the link is doesn't necessarily has to be relevant. We all know it's not easy to find relevant links all the time so we grab anything we can to rank, as long as it's not too spammy obvious and preferably with PR/DA.
        I'm not saying that ranking in the search engines won't build traffic. I know from my own experience that ranking can be a huge advantage.

        But the methods that most of you are doing aren't really what I believe is right.

        I mean come on...

        You want to find "links"?

        To me that just sounds like you want to spam the internet in a sense. That's just my opinion, but I personally would rather look to find how to build my business further and continue to expand what I have to share.

        When I "build links" I don't go out and say, "hey today I'm going to build some links to my website", instead I say, "Hey, today I'm going to share some knowledge and in return I would love it if people come to my website from those sources".

        It may just be me.

        But I really hate when people talk about backlink building, because most of the time, it's all about spamming the internet with more junk.
        Signature

        My name is Justin Lewis. My digital marketing company has been in business for over 10 years with multiple six-figure years. We do provide a premium web design service.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6316926].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author The Expert
          I guess I'm on the other side of the table on this one. I would take the higher PR links first as long as they were dofollow. There are plenty of people on this board who've drawn out example after example of building sites with links from sources which have no relation whatsoever to their own site and they do great.

          On-page relevence is only one of many (I think I read Cutts say about 50) different metrics which are attached to every link out there. It's not the most important. Page rank (and the trust and authority metrics which you can assume go with any page that has high PR) is still one of the most important factors there is in how much value a link has. We can't measure trust or authority as those metrics are hidden so PR is probably second only to whether the link is dofollow or not.

          That's not to say that I don't take PR0 links from related sites. I post between two and four times a day on a forum directly related to my site, but all these links only come from one domain and there are not 20 active forums from which I can get dofollow links in my niche like the video game, cell phone, gun enthusiast, or computer programming niches have. There's just one.

          Finally, when I'm hunting for "power links" I don't settle for pages with PR3 or PR4 links. If I'm taking the time to manually build links I want more juice. I score PR5 and PR6 dofollow links all day long using only Scrapebox and SEO Spyglass. If it's a bad day of searching, I can ALWAYS find PR4 links on domains which I've not scored links from before. If I'm shot on time, I have a house-list of sites which I've gotten PR5/6 links from before and I just go back to those sites and grab some more.

          Aside from figuring out how to write long-form 4000+ word content, nothing (and I mean nothing) has helped me blast to the top of the SERPS faster than dofollow blog comment links on very high PR pages.... irrelevant of whether the content those links are found on relates to my niche or not. I have a sneaky suspicion that whatever penalty is registered against links embedded in non-relevant content only applies to links on low-value PR0/1/2 pages and is lifted on higher PR pages.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6317382].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joe118
            Originally Posted by The Expert View Post

            I have a sneaky suspicion that whatever penalty is registered against links embedded in non-relevant content only applies to links on low-value PR0/1/2 pages and is lifted on higher PR pages.
            This supports my observations from my own clients sites. The back links from pages on PR5+ sites have not been deindexed and appear to still count and support the positions my clients sites occupy in the SERP. The client sites that engaged in flooding their money sites with tens of thousands of low quality links have seen position drops. The clients sites that have a much more conservative back link profile which includes a reasonable proportion of links from high page rank source sites have not been losing a lot of link "juice" and have held their positions.

            Of course all of that is for sites with similar keyword density and other on-site factors being similar. You need to compare apples to apples.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6318057].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nik0
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Justin Lewis View Post

          It may just be me.

          But I really hate when people talk about backlink building, because most of the time, it's all about spamming the internet with more junk.
          We are not here to make the internet a better place, we are here to make money

          Anyway, you can hate it, but backlinks are still the driving force between tons of rankings, and most people don't have the budget or time to only find relevant links, and many niches don't allow for it either.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6317973].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Justin Says
            Originally Posted by nik0 View Post

            We are not here to make the internet a better place, we are here to make money

            Anyway, you can hate it, but backlinks are still the driving force between tons of rankings, and most people don't have the budget or time to only find relevant links, and many niches don't allow for it either.
            You say "we" as in everyone that is apart of internet marketing and I just want to let you know that it isn't entirely true

            Just because "you" just want to make money and don't care what happens to the internet or the future of this time bomb, doesn't mean everyone feels the same.

            As for time.. if people don't have the time to do this, then they shouldn't do it. Trying to cheat your way to the top isn't what's going to make you come out on top.

            And as for a budget, you don't need a budget to become successful, you just need to take action. The problem with most people is that they just don't care enough to even put a little bit of effort into it. Even if they say they are, they most likely aren't. It's a sad truth, but most people are just wasting their time.
            Signature

            My name is Justin Lewis. My digital marketing company has been in business for over 10 years with multiple six-figure years. We do provide a premium web design service.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6318721].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JSProjects
          Originally Posted by Justin Lewis View Post

          I'm not saying that ranking in the search engines won't build traffic. I know from my own experience that ranking can be a huge advantage.

          But the methods that most of you are doing aren't really what I believe is right.

          I mean come on...

          You want to find "links"?

          To me that just sounds like you want to spam the internet in a sense. That's just my opinion, but I personally would rather look to find how to build my business further and continue to expand what I have to share.

          When I "build links" I don't go out and say, "hey today I'm going to build some links to my website", instead I say, "Hey, today I'm going to share some knowledge and in return I would love it if people come to my website from those sources".

          It may just be me.

          But I really hate when people talk about backlink building, because most of the time, it's all about spamming the internet with more junk.
          Backlinks are still the backbone when it comes to ranking. I wish I could say, "Hey, I just wrote a great article. I can't wait for people to find it in the search engines." Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.

          Now, I can share that information at various sources / online communities. But, for the most part, that's still not going to help me rank.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6320710].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Campaignmarket
            You'd want to AVOID non-relevant backlinks! Google is FIERCE when it comes non-relevant backlinks, even from authority sites!

            Don't try to do shortcuts, that will also lead to penalty. Any Blackhat method will result in gettting slapped by Google and Ultimately end up with you getting your site BANNED!

            So do Whitehat High Relevance Backlinks! It's important to do things the right way, especially because of the recent changes withing Google.!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6320824].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Justin Says
            Originally Posted by JSProjects View Post

            Backlinks are still the backbone when it comes to ranking. I wish I could say, "Hey, I just wrote a great article. I can't wait for people to find it in the search engines." Unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.

            Now, I can share that information at various sources / online communities. But, for the most part, that's still not going to help me rank.
            You do realize that by sharing the article, you are sharing the link to the article, which in a sense is still building backlinks, just with a different method.

            When I say don't build backlinks, I mean to not focus on the building backlinks aspect but more on the sharing aspect and getting the word out.
            Signature

            My name is Justin Lewis. My digital marketing company has been in business for over 10 years with multiple six-figure years. We do provide a premium web design service.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6321245].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author linkpacts
    Though the relevant PR 2 backlinks can't do much good on your ranking, it is better than the unrelevant PR3/4. The great thing about the change is, it is not about the quantity anymore, as long as we have a few high PR and relevant backlinks, we can gain the favor of Google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312367].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author adam337
    Dofolow links is needed to get link juice and it helps to rank as well.But only this kind of non related link is not good for your site.So it is better to build link(nofollow or dofollow) in related sites.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312441].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Web Hosting
    Things are changing in search engine land, that is for sure. I choose to ignore stuff like PR and go after backlinks that are niche related. It just makes sense to me, as you should be going after the traffic that these links can bring. Anything else such as rankings increase is just extra!

    Remember PR changes. A site or page with low PR could gain it in the future. I feel that there is an ever growing risk involved with seeking out links that are unrelated. In other words it is not as questionable to the search engines when you have mostly related links.

    Now is it going to hurt you to have a few random nice PR backlinks??? I doubt it... but those sort of links will not be my focus.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312475].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Elion Makkink
    I would go for relevant ones, definitely!
    Signature

    Cheers,
    Elion Makkink

    Become an SEO Hustler too at seohustlers.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6312484].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Certitude
    I would say that relevancy is a whole lot more important since Penguin.
    Signature
    “We Dream And We Build. We Never Give Up, We Never Quit.” ~ Jeremy Renner as Carmine Polito in American Hustle
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6313041].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author toman
      Originally Posted by Certitude View Post

      I would say that relevancy is a whole lot more important since Penguin.
      I have been experimenting with utilizing more relevant terms in my back link building efforts recently and have seen some eye opening cause and effect scenarios. I have noticed a drastic difference in the benefit derived from back linking when using relevant vs. not so relevant vs. not relevant at all keywords.

      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6314727].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
        Originally Posted by toman View Post

        I have been experimenting with utilizing more relevant terms in my back link building efforts recently and have seen some eye opening cause and effect scenarios. I have noticed a drastic difference in the benefit derived from back linking when using relevant vs. not so relevant vs. not relevant at all keywords.
        I have also noticed a big different in relevance. 200 high pr non relavant links Vs 50 lower pr relevant links, my rank shifted way more with the weaker relevant links.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6315108].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Duy Nguyen
    Originally Posted by Arav View Post

    I often see that people emphasize on just getting PR-3/4+ Do-follow backlinks i.e. Quality backlinks. But I'm finding it hard to find such backlinks.
    But I could manage some Relevant PR-2 sites from where I may acquire backlinks.

    So, I'm in a fix.Because, after the recent Web Spam update, Google is penalizing Low Quality backlinked sites. So, will such low PR site will be counted the same and my site will get penalized? Also, such PR-2 backlink will make any contribution for improving SERP?

    And, backlinks from Non-English sites are BAD?
    How about getting both the links?
    Signature
    Failure Is Temporary, Giving Up Makes It Permanent
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6314649].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author riyadsouza
    Google Loves those backlinks which are created on a website related to your theme. So a PR2 relevant backlink is definitely more juicy than other high PR irrelevant backlinks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6314736].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jason Lomberg
    In my point of view PR2 Relevant backlinks is more better than PR4 non relevant backlinks.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6315012].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sadeeshbala
    A relevant PR2 links are better.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6315055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fearlesspioneer
    relevant pr2 is better if there are not many other external links on the page.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6315957].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author System Wide Solutions
    Relevancy is considered first than the PR.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6316858].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe118
    Google's algorithm can determine relevance of the source page (on which the link appears) to the link's anchor text to the target page. Yes, all three need to form a relevance "chain". There's lots of disagreement on whether you need to worry about the source site (as a whole) being relevant to the target page.

    There's no evidence that this is currently required, and there's weak evidence only that the whole source page is required to be relevant to the link to the target page. There's some pretty strong evidence that if the paragraph surrounding the link forms a relevance chain thru the link with the target page, that's a better link (in terms of relevance) than a link thats not in the middle of some relevant text.

    If I were to design an algorithm for taking into account source site relevance, I'd for sure implement some kind of cut-off on the number of pages considered, so that source sites with more than that number of pages does not have to be relevant in all its pages to the link under consideration. And I'd implement it so that the set of pages selected for the relevance test would be the ones that act as source pages for links to the page on which the link under consideration appears. In other words, I'd consider only a small set of pages on the source site -- those that point at the source page with links in the text.

    Anyways all of this only touches upon one parameter for evaluating the value of a link. There's many more, such as page rank of the source page, page rank of the source site, authority of the source site, and on and on. Noone besides Google knows what's the formula and what exceptions really exist, we're just trying to observe like blind mice around an elephant
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6318025].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
      Originally Posted by Joe118 View Post

      Google's algorithm can determine relevance of the source page (on which the link appears) to the link's anchor text to the target page. Yes, all three need to form a relevance "chain". There's lots of disagreement on whether you need to worry about the source site (as a whole) being relevant to the target page.

      There's no evidence that this is currently required, and there's weak evidence only that the whole source page is required to be relevant to the link to the target page. There's some pretty strong evidence that if the paragraph surrounding the link forms a relevance chain thru the link with the target page, that's a better link (in terms of relevance) than a link thats not in the middle of some relevant text.
      There are ways Google can classify relevancy. They can categorise the web in many different ways, take users for example;

      >>Your categories and demographics

      https://www.google.com/ads/preferences/

      They also have the ability to categorise websites;

      Top 1000 sites - DoubleClick Ad Planner

      I know from building adsense sites that Google's categories can be 5 levels deep, they need to do this to serve better advertisments. The whole web to them is made up of social and web profiles. Just go over to adwords and use the contextual targeting tool and you will see what I mean.

      Bing can also determine relevancy, in fact they use the page title when determining the weight of a given link.

      The proof is really in the pudding on this one.. I personally have had better results when the website, webpage and link are all relevant regardless of pagerank but having abit of pagerank and domain authority is a bonus. The less relevance there is, the less serps increase you will have but it's not to say there won't be some improvement.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6320961].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RalphManer
    I think the relevant PRs are always better. Google's algorithm is pretty advanced. So I think it really looks for relevancy, if s=for no other reason that just because it can
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6318060].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe118
      Originally Posted by RalphManer View Post

      I think the relevant PRs are always better. Google's algorithm is pretty advanced. So I think it really looks for relevancy, if s=for no other reason that just because it can
      Ralph sorry to pick on you but this is exactly the kind of thinking we need to combat.

      If you haven't worked at Google on this exact part of their algorithm, then you don't know what they can and cannot do. And if you believewhat Matt Cutts says, then we part ways right there -- Matt's job is to tell people how Google would like them to behave, not necessarily how Google can analyze that behavior.

      The other alternative is to provide some observable evidence for your "thinking", i.e. just because you think they can do X, it's not a fact.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6318076].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tazmart
    Your backlinks have got to be relevant, that's what Google like and expect. PR0 sites aren't ideal either, Google loves high PR relevant backlinks. You should ideally have 250 - 750 good quality links.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6321155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sagarmandape
    Google is killing blog networks where you could have got PR3+ links as many as you wanted. Getting links from relevant sites is much more valuable and getting links from high PR blogs where nobody comment or discuss on the topics. Simply find relevant community sites and be active in the discussion there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6360739].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author manjul1982
    I was just wondering, How many backlinks would be considered natural for a website in its first year?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6360750].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dmtaylor247
      Originally Posted by manjul1982 View Post

      I was just wondering, How many backlinks would be considered natural for a website in its first year?
      No more than 100 good quality links, why would you need more anyway?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6360762].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JSProjects
      Originally Posted by manjul1982 View Post

      I was just wondering, How many backlinks would be considered natural for a website in its first year?
      Way too many variables. A site in a low competition niche isn't going to need much. (As long as they're quality backlinks.) But a site in a heavy competition niche is going to need more.

      Quality over quantity though.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6361351].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bhola badshah
    relevant links are always better, you get the link juice and you get the targeted visitor with conversion. Remember, a visitor with no interest in your website can't convert like a targeted visitor.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6364834].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sackboy127
    Relevant backlinks are always better in the long run, first I'd concentrate on those.

    But in case you come across the opportunity of an easy PR5 backlink (even though it's unrelevant), don't miss it.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365166].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Devel
    Relevant backlink good for your SERP ranking. But if you want to increase your PR than higher PR is better.
    Signature
    Flat File CMS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365179].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author designerpk.com
    Hi, first of all I would like to thanks to all and I understand relevant backlink is important but I'm still little bit confuse regarding do-follow relevant backlink and no-follow relevant backlink which one is more important and what is natural backlinks ?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7011268].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Enzo Ewens
    Originally Posted by Arav View Post

    I often see that people emphasize on just getting PR-3/4+ Do-follow backlinks i.e. Quality backlinks. But I'm finding it hard to find such backlinks.
    But I could manage some Relevant PR-2 sites from where I may acquire backlinks.

    So, I'm in a fix.Because, after the recent Web Spam update, Google is penalizing Low Quality backlinked sites. So, will such low PR site will be counted the same and my site will get penalized? Also, such PR-2 backlink will make any contribution for improving SERP?

    And, backlinks from Non-English sites are BAD?


    Relevant sites.


    And why would you even link to nonenglish sites? Thats just spam.
    Signature
    ***** Read My Complete SENUKE X CR Review *****
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7011319].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JSProjects
      Originally Posted by Enzo Ewens View Post

      Relevant sites.


      And why would you even link to nonenglish sites? Thats just spam.
      I've left plenty of comments on non-english sites and they work just fine. I don't see why they'd be considered spam. Although, since I comment manually, I run them through a translator first. (Generally not the greatest translation, but plenty of my comments have been approved.)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7041281].message }}

Trending Topics