Why linkbuilding is not the Future of SEO

40 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Thoughts? SInce I am a noobie I can't really judge. It makes sense.

Why Link Building Is NOT the Future of SEO
#future #linkbuilding #seo
  • Profile picture of the author StingGB
    What the guy says in the article is only half correct.

    User experience is important. But people tend to forget Google is only an algorithm. No-one at Google is actually looking at sites. The only way Google can judge user experience is by time spent on page/site and bounce rate.

    Similarly, the only other way the algorithm can judge a site's credibility is by the quality of sites that link to it. Google bot is only a robot with comparatively limited capabilities. It's not rocket science if you think about things logically.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10084990].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nmwf
      Originally Posted by StingGB View Post

      But people tend to forget Google is only an algorithm. No-one at Google is actually looking at sites.
      Actually, there are people looking at sites. They're known as Search Quality Raters.
      Signature
      Write comprehensible articles on *any* topic in seconds with First Draft...
      First Draft's: Download | Add-Ons | Templates | Purchase | Support | Affiliates
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085221].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

        Actually, there are people looking at sites. They're known as Search Quality Raters.
        ...which will never happen on 99.99% of the sites on the net.
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085249].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author neteater
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          ...which will never happen on 99.99% of the sites on the net.
          friend you forgot a famous accident at google where an employee looking at search results accidentally marked all search results are dangerous or malware affected, so there are people looking for search result, but there main task is

          1- to look for illegal porn and remove that
          2- look for terrorist site and remove them
          3- look for drugs sell site and remove them
          4- look for illegal torrent site and remove
          5- and sell of illegal arms.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086317].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by neteater View Post

            friend you forgot a famous accident at google where an employee looking at search results accidentally marked all search results are dangerous or malware affected, so there are people looking for search result, but there main task is

            1- to look for illegal porn and remove that
            2- look for terrorist site and remove them
            3- look for drugs sell site and remove them
            4- look for illegal torrent site and remove
            5- and sell of illegal arms.
            Really?

            One Google employee brought their search algo. to its knees & shut down a billion dollar business with a few clicks?

            Amazing!
            Signature
            Hi
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086580].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author StingGB
        Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

        Actually, there are people looking at sites. They're known as Search Quality Raters.
        The big sites, yes. But not yours or mine or 99.999% of all sites that exist.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085262].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thejfoster42
        Originally Posted by nmwf View Post

        Actually, there are people looking at sites. They're known as Search Quality Raters.
        True, but those are mostly random spot checks. It is impossible for the fine folks at Google to check every single page of every single site to determine whether it is worth ranking or not.

        Google might be 1% human checked, but the other 99% is just math. As long as links are part of the equation, they will be relevant to your rankings.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10147711].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author IamJeez
      Originally Posted by StingGB View Post

      What the guy says in the article is only half correct.

      User experience is important. But people tend to forget Google is only an algorithm. No-one at Google is actually looking at sites. The only way Google can judge user experience is by time spent on page/site and bounce rate.

      Similarly, the only other way the algorithm can judge a site's credibility is by the quality of sites that link to it. Google bot is only a robot with comparatively limited capabilities. It's not rocket science if you think about things logically.
      And wat if Google decides to make these metrics more and more important to get higher in ranking? Couldnt that be possible?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085848].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by IamJeez View Post

        And wat if Google decides to make these metrics more and more important to get higher in ranking? Couldnt that be possible?
        You're dreaming, bounce rate isn't anything new let alone from the future.
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086573].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author IamJeez
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          You're dreaming, bounce rate isn't anything new let alone from the future.
          Not dreaming, just filling gaps in my knowledge. What I meant was Google becoming more and more advanced in figuring out what 'a good search' means for a costumer. Making the spiders and all more "human-like".

          So, yes, maybe thats dreaming. However, artificial intelligence was also dreaming once and we are getting closer (didn't want to make a cliché quote about dreaming about landing on the moon)

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10087035].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by IamJeez View Post

            Not dreaming, just filling gaps in my knowledge. What I meant was Google becoming more and more advanced in figuring out what 'a good search' means for a costumer. Making the spiders and all more "human-like".

            So, yes, maybe thats dreaming. However, artificial intelligence was also dreaming once and we are getting closer (didn't want to make a cliché quote about dreaming about landing on the moon)

            No doubt Google hires some of the smartest folks in the world to code their search algo., but backlinks is still the core ranking decision maker today. There's no sign of anything else replacing backlinks as the core ranking factor, nothing even remotely close.

            Bounce Rate has existed for a few years which makes Neil's claim that much more silly.

            BTW, Yandex tried to ignore backlinks, doesn't look like it worked out like they expected.
            Signature
            Hi
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10087127].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author IamJeez
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              No doubt Google hires some of the smartest folks in the world to code their search algo., but backlinks is still the core ranking decision maker today. There's no sign of anything else replacing backlinks as the core ranking factor, nothing even remotely close.

              Bounce Rate has existed for a few years which makes Neil's claim that much more silly.

              BTW, Yandex tried to ignore backlinks, doesn't look like it worked out like they expected.
              Do you have 1 or 2 great articles at hand about how to build backlinks?
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10087137].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author savidge4
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              No doubt Google hires some of the smartest folks in the world to code their search algo., but backlinks is still the core ranking decision maker today. There's no sign of anything else replacing backlinks as the core ranking factor, nothing even remotely close.

              Bounce Rate has existed for a few years which makes Neil's claim that much more silly.

              BTW, Yandex tried to ignore backlinks, doesn't look like it worked out like they expected.

              I am not even making an attempt to argue that backlinks are valid ( there is no arguing that ) but there are signs of another way. Start looking at things like Authorship ( the fact it was dropped by Google ) and the expansion of Schema and some other things. specifically looking at scheme, there are without questions some methods that could/can be used to make link less connections between sites.
              Signature
              Success is an ACT not an idea
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10147768].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Banned
                Originally Posted by savidge4 View Post

                I am not even making an attempt to argue that backlinks are valid ( there is no arguing that ) but there are signs of another way. Start looking at things like Authorship ( the fact it was dropped by Google ) and the expansion of Schema and some other things. specifically looking at scheme, there are without questions some methods that could/can be used to make link less connections between sites.
                Authorship wasn't impressive on any level, it was a SERP trophy that didn't rank pages.

                Schema is on-page & does have advantages like the schema SERP box that can include a link from a domain/page that's only at the bottom of the 1st page. In that case it's literally possible to rank above the #1 ranked organic webpage but you still need to get in the game by ranking anywhere on the 1st page of the search results. You're not getting the schema SERP box by ranking on page #5 (example).

                Anyways, backlinks still rank pages today, schema is still fairly new & unpredictable how long Google will even allow it in the SERPs.
                Signature
                Hi
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10147920].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author savidge4
                  Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                  Schema is on-page & does have advantages like the schema SERP box that can include a link from a domain/page that's only at the bottom of the 1st page. In that case it's literally possible to rank above the #1 ranked organic webpage but you still need to get in the game by ranking anywhere on the 1st page of the search results. You're not getting the schema SERP box by ranking on page #5 (example).

                  Anyways, backlinks still rank pages today, schema is still fairly new & unpredictable how long Google will even allow it in the SERPs.
                  I like to keep a lot of what schema is ( to me ) to myself. Schema is by no means JUST on-page. I could show you tag after tag that would indicate otherwise. And its within these that the idea that schema could be the replacement to linking is where I believe the future of SEO to be.

                  Right now I believe Schema to be pretty much an SEO specialist gold mine in many ways. understanding what it does, and how it can effect, and in cases manipulate the Serps ( you pointed out one of these cases ) can be down right brutal in the right hands. Unfortunately as we write more and more stuff about it, it will become abused and Google will take some type of action to place it in check.

                  What I think right now is unpredictable is how specifically all of the search engines ( Google, Bing, Yandex, and Yahoo! ) are using the data to create more user friendly Serps. But is that any different than the other 200 supposedly known variables SEO works with now? Actually you throw Schema into the works and there are like 400+ variables at this point. ( Yeah for us! LOL - not )

                  I just don't see Google dropping it.. When you look at Schema examples and see something like https://schema.org/Organization ( all the way to the bottom look for the first example markup ) You have to think that Google is a bit more than a partner, and a lot more than vested in the ideals that Schema offers.
                  Signature
                  Success is an ACT not an idea
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10148240].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    That Neil guy. He's so funny. Telling people that cannot figure out how to rank pages exactly what they want to hear.
    Signature
    Get the TIPS and STRATEGIES I use to HELP businesses GROW through SEO delivered to you each week!

    >>> Sign Up Now <<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085018].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Google would rather rank a relevant to a search query webpage with no links than one that contains hundreds of links but is only somewhat relevant.
      LMAO...........
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085057].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author zookies
    It's easy for google to measure site rejection.

    If users click on the site, look for a second, then hit the back button and try the next site on the list, google knows it.

    Sites that don't provide what people want will get rejected, people will vote with the back button, and google will drop them down, no matter how many links they have.

    Neil is mostly right on with this article.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085173].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sarah Operman
      Originally Posted by zookies View Post

      It's easy for google to measure site rejection.

      If users click on the site, look for a second, then hit the back button and try the next site on the list, google knows it.

      Sites that don't provide what people want will get rejected, people will vote with the back button, and google will drop them down, no matter how many links they have.

      Neil is mostly right on with this article.
      I agree, Google knows what sites are quality and which are not.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085208].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        Originally Posted by Sarah Operman View Post

        I agree, Google knows what sites are quality and which are not.
        Google has no clue as to what is quality or not. In fact, they don't really give
        a rat's behind.

        Bounce rate has zip to do with anything. That's another cheap shot metric
        that some guru came up with living in some hole. If I can find what I need
        in one second, why on earth should I stay on a site for a friggin hour?
        That makes no logical sense.

        Google is into solving a searcher's problem. Period. Google can
        do that in many cases by not even needing a searcher to visit a site.
        They quote it......now what kind of a bounce rate is that?!?!?!

        If you think google is in the business of removing illegal content, you
        are really completely clueless. In fact, "they" feel they are in the business
        of protecting it....

        So much clueless crap seo in this thread, it is one big fail.

        Sure. Don't link build. PLEASE! Save the internet for the rest
        who know what the frick they're doing.

        Paul
        Signature

        If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086535].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by zookies View Post

      It's easy for google to measure site rejection.

      If users click on the site, look for a second, then hit the back button and try the next site on the list, google knows it.

      Sites that don't provide what people want will get rejected, people will vote with the back button, and google will drop them down, no matter how many links they have.

      Neil is mostly right on with this article.
      He's full of crap & he's a bonehead If he thinks clicking a browser Back button is something futuristic about SEO.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085234].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mkgg
      Originally Posted by zookies View Post

      It's easy for google to measure site rejection.

      If users click on the site, look for a second, then hit the back button and try the next site on the list, google knows it.

      Sites that don't provide what people want will get rejected, people will vote with the back button, and google will drop them down, no matter how many links they have.

      Neil is mostly right on with this article.
      I click back and look at the other sites often to get all the information i want that may not be offered in the first site.

      Am i messing up google search position for the first site ?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086150].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEOWizard417
    People still think of Google as some all-knowing entity. Search results are still, and likely will be for some time, based on an algorithm. The web is too big and only growing bigger, there is no way that Google has the resources to have people evaluate sites manually on an extensive scale.

    As far as bounce rate and user metrics go, they can only get that information from sites using Google tools or Chrome. Plus with firefox going with yahoo, they lost a bit of that market as well.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10085690].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pawansingh
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086049].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Weetek
    I guess it is half true half not.... links for bot are still big weight of argument that page is actually relevant for visitors.... but if visitors see the page and bounce back it will hurt your ranking as well.... so you should pay attention both sides of this war
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086111].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jameswilliam724
    I think SEO peoples now knew how to get more back links easily. They are very smart enough. But Search engines like Google only want to produce the appropriate results to users for their queries. So that searchers can get what the want exactly. This is main principle of Google. So create and share information for users not for search engines. This is the thing that Google focusing about.
    Signature

    Know about HTML 6 here - 10 best features of HTML 6 over HTML 5

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086184].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author benys
    We know best way to get good ranking, is getting quality link building, all the world speaking about that, but the problem it is not easy absolutely to have a link from these high websites. I have a larg liste of good quality links but it's impossible to earn a link from them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author princy91
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086449].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      You're misquoting him. Notice how Mueller is very careful to phrase his answer as something that he would do, and notice how he talks about focusing on link building.

      I suppose the "link building" in the sense that Mueller is using the phrase mostly means the kind of artificial methods we see on these forums as he's clearly talking about building links to your site. I'd consider link baiting and outreach to be part of "link building", and there's nothing wrong with those methods even in Google's eyes.
      Signature
      Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
      Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

      What's your excuse?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086516].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by princy91 View Post

      In a conversation John mueller suggested to avoid link building as it may harm the website.
      Do you really think he's going to suggest everyone build links to rank pages on Google SERPs?

      We already know strong links rank pages, end of story.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nabaleka
    Why do people fear Google so much, it has occurred to me that some elements perceive the Google bot as some form of AI
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086762].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      I'm sure Google's looking for a way to rank sites that can't be manipulated, like backlinks. And every now and again it thinks it's found a way to stop/reduce the manipulation and increases / decreases the weight it gives signals.

      I'm sure it would love to be able to rank, accurately, based only on mentions of a website on other websites that have the right content/keywords...

      Like word-of-mouth...

      That doesn't mean it's ignoring or will ignore links.

      I'm also sure Neil makes a lot of money with his blog via Google visitors. Might he not be inclined to omit from this discussions things Google says Google doesn't like?

      As regards to content:

      I can rank a page for home owner's insurance with the following content on it:

      I piss on home owner's insurance. Home owner's insurance quotes are shit.
      House. car insurance. plus. technically insurance is... When you buy a home...

      independent insurance agents or captive insurance agents.

      Did I mention that I piss. How lovely insurance.
      Not to mention dental insurance. Owner. Renter. Mortgage.

      What Google will get out of a page like that is that it's about home owner's insurance.

      You may not have noticed, but in your Google webmaster, Google lists the words on a site and how many variations you've used and ranks them by importance (the more they're used across all pages on the site, the more importance Google assigns to them).

      And I'm sure it also does things like that we groupings of 2 words, 3 words, 4 word.

      In the passage above, if I made normal sentences, that don't make sense together, but each sentence is a correct sentence, it would not know the difference.

      I want to buy homeowners insurance. Purchasing home insurance, a possible occurrence in the middle of the night a thief and jewelery stolen. It is good to have insurance.
      Cars at high speed are more likely to be in accidents.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EllieThomos
    So how precisely does google figure out whether your site is pertinent. The more applicable great quality back connections you have the more pertinent your site gets to be
    Signature

    EssayPros delivers result oriented essay writing help. Get the best Essay Writing Service with us.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086857].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
    LOL.

    The OP copied over Neil's feedburner tracking code.

    There goes this months GA campaign tracking stats lol
    Signature

    BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086870].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by John Romaine View Post

      LOL.

      The OP copied over Neil's feedburner tracking code.

      There goes this months GA campaign tracking stats lol
      Maybe add that tracking code to a bunch of random 404 links & fire up Scrapebox, lol.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086881].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
        Originally Posted by yukon View Post

        Maybe add that tracking code to the a bunch of random 404 links & fire up Scrapebox, lol.
        Just change the campaign name to redtube
        Signature

        BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10086903].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author IamJeez
      Originally Posted by John Romaine View Post

      LOL.

      The OP copied over Neil's feedburner tracking code.

      There goes this months GA campaign tracking stats lol
      Sorry, what I did I do?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10087045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DABK
        The link you posted is not just for the article but for the feedburner

        Click on your link and, when the page loads, look at the url, towards the end.

        Originally Posted by IamJeez View Post

        Sorry, what I did I do?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10087076].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author IamJeez
          Originally Posted by DABK View Post

          The link you posted is not just for the article but for the feedburner

          Click on your link and, when the page loads, look at the url, towards the end.
          And why is that a problem?

          Changed it by the way.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10087089].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tm124
    What planet is Neil Patel living on?

    "In essence, the sites with the best user experience are going to win in the long run."

    He talks about "best user experience" yet when I visited his site I didn't get a great experience at all. I had a good laugh though.
    Signature

    Moderators Note: Defamation is not allowed as a signature.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10147756].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
    An important thing a lot of people are ignoring is the fact that Google publicly stated behavioral metrics have no role in the desktop algorithm.

    CTR isn't really an on page metric.. but bounce rate and time on site and all the other stuff people bring up has been shot down.

    Unless of course you think Google is giving misinformation. I'm just surprised no one here is bringing it up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10148558].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ElminaKamley
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10240947].message }}

Trending Topics