Based off of the outcome of a discussion in another thread, I started to get curious about what most of you think of as "natural activity" in regards to linkbuilding. So, how exactly do YOU define "natural activity", and thus "natural linkbuilding"?
As I mentioned in another thread, I think the essence of what we do as offline consultants/internet marketers/SEOs is increasing our own or our client's web presence by "simulating natural activity". To me, this basically describes any type of manual linkbuilding that is done with the primary goal of increasing web presence/rank through link acquisition. No matter what you are doing, at the fundamental level you are building links that would not be there without your presence/intervention/promotion. I am NOT talking about blatant automated spammy backlinking methods here, JUST manual link building of all shapes and sizes.
I've noticed that some on this forum seem to believe that certain types of manual link building are "OK", and thus "natural" in Google's eyes.... Yet some manual backlinking strategies are not "OK" and can be described as "unnatural activity".
Just looking to gather some opinions from those doing their own online work, but also doing SEO work for their clients. What type of manual backlinking strategies do you see as "natural", and what type of manual backlinking strategies do you see as "unnatural activity"?
By the very definition of what we do, in my mind, we are actively manipulating the search results for our own gain and our own client's gain. Are some manual link building strategies NOT "manipulation" at the most fundamental level?
What is a "natural", manually-built backlink these days, and what sites are ranking #1 in competitive industries using ONLY these "natural" links? I'm talking about personally owned "commercially-driven" websites operated by people like us...so no cnn.coms or wikipedias don't count. Sites using adsense/affiliate ads/lead gen etc in the ultra-competitive niches like law, finance, health etc.....