Completely IRRELEVANT backlinks RANK top #1 !?

About 150 of those links come from the same site, a site which is literally only associated with truck driving, hundreds of posts and videos only about trucks and cars, road safety, I used the search on the site and his content is nowhere to be found, no results, where is the link? I don't get it.

Other sites I've checked seem to be legit news sites which have been live for 2-3 and 5+ years, again, in no contextual sense associated with his site.

If nothing, can you please answer the following:

In a niche, where no one has content relevant backlinks (or any backlinks at all) would ANY kind of backlinks rank you higher among others?

So if there are 30 sites in the same niche, 29 have NO backlinks, 1 has a lot, will that 1 site be ranked on top? (Considering the 1 site has the same, or better quality of content, on-page optimization etc).

IF that's the case...

Mike it thats the case then relevancy from the link source would be completely dead as a metric to google. Any well built site is going to have internal links that will "launder" the links. I could point links from dress shops to your SEO site and the navigation and tags about SEO to your other pages and posts would launder the links for SEO.

It must mean, I'm a Laundrette owner. Love it.

This is great to hear, thank you for your input. Like I said I'm new to SEO, I'm no where near of being on "top of the game" concerning knowledge and resources, but because I've seen people mention this relevancy thing so much, I just kinda went into the stream of thinking that if your links have no relevance, Google will destroy you and your entire life. (xd)

If you could now relate to my last question in the previous post that'd be great.

Haha, did you place content about dildo's and sex shows on those domains or articles about gadgets and cars?

Your selling auto parts to naked people?

You're confusing some pages with ALL the pages linking to a site.

If someone does semi decent link building he naturall has tons of relevant pages linking to them so there's your proof.

Unless bookmarks, web directories, spammy blog comments, crappy blog networks are your primary source of links and then you will simply tank.

Heck are you really that ignorant? Why on earth you think all the spammers who know what they do have so much love for contextual links on web2.0's, wiki's, forums, article directories, zendesk support pages and what not.

It shouldn't get crazier then that here, the whole SPAM industry proves that relevant links are a must, and that's one heck of an example isn't it.

I'm gonna go with:

blog site 1 -> money site
blog site 2 -> money site
blog site 3 -> money site

The second one looks like a small link wheel.

If you think about it, why not take advantage of each and every site you have in your arsenal? Provided that you make all those sites into real sites, not just some site used to rank your money site.

The important factor in the above is the network are all new sites.

When you say new I assume you've registered new domains added some content and linked to your money site?

You could do this with a 100 new domains with half a dozen webpages each and the value is so low it's almost zero right now.

That's not to say it can't have value, but without working on backlinks to the network the amount of SEO benefit passed is almost irrelevant.

Creating content is easy, generating backlinks is hard: which one do you think Google considers more important SEO wise?

If you don't know how to build backlinks registering new domains to link to money sites is wasting your time and money. If you are good at generating links this sort of approach can build a valuable network of sites which can power money sites. I've been doing just that for well over a decade and it works, takes time and effort, but it works.

Shortcut to this is buy domains that already have backlinks and are ranking for something: don't go buying domains because they are PRX, but when you look at the traffic it's non-existent. If it has no traffic the SEO value is probably low.

Assume a link from a high traffic site (high organic search engine traffic) website will pass significantly more SEO value than a similar site that has no organic traffic. With a ranked site you know Google hasn't given it any penalties, you know Google is considering it important.

When buying sites for a network the trick is to find websites with potential, if they are already generating maximum traffic the owner will want more money for it. There's plenty of sites run by bloggers etc... who aren't in it for the money who don't understand SEO and though they generate backlinks their content targets niches with little to no organic search engine traffic. If you are lucky you can buy diamonds in the rough for under $100, improve the content so they gain more traffic and use them for linking to money sites or turn them into money sites.

David

Can you please elaborate?

Thanks

Because as I pointed out earlier a number of people in this thread are confusing relevant with non spammy as if the one thing that makes link spam link spam is non relevance.

Its really quite silly. google penalizes sites all theme for selling links and even those that take only link sales within their own niche.

I never said you was building spammy links. I made a reference to your OP about the competitions link profile.

As long as a link is on a page dedicated to your subject your link is relevant and everyone with a natural backlink profile naturally has tons of such links.

It becomes an issue when you have your links on pages shared with a dozen or more others, like most public blog networks are setup, and same like how most bookmark sites, web directories, blog comments etc are done.

Site relevancy is not important now though I do think it gives some extra value and I think it will play a bit of a larger role in the future, though Google would obviously never force people to only have links from relevant sites as that's just not how it works in the real world.