Backlink is not the King of the Hill

by 61 replies
61
Backlink is not the King of the Hill but rather royal pain in royal ass.

Yes, who has been linking to your site is important for G. algo but crazy amount
of backlinks are not simply because quality and not quantity is what Google want.

Here is another doubletalk from the horse's mouth

Backlink is not the King of the Hill - YouTube


fastreplies
#search engine optimization #backlink #hill #king
  • [DELETED]
  • [DELETED]
  • [DELETED]
  • i see that very clearly
    content is the king
    and the trend of marketing is content marketing
  • Banned

    Every single thing Matt said in that video is great advice. I'm not sure why you said double talk.

    He even said use a text browser (0:38) for testing your pages/links which is what I've been preaching for years & I bet my last nickel most folks trying to SEO will never do it. They'll struggle with live webpage clutter.

    When he mentioned link building he was also giving good advice, a single traffic source (ex: SERPs) is a shot in the foot. Expand with multiple traffic sources targeting the same niche.
    • [1] reply
    • You're right, if you are reading what he's saying, I'm reading in between the lines.

      Just look how he is trying to avoid to talk about backlinks and only mention them as
      some nobody really cares relatives you have invited to visit but they decided to stick
      around for longer and you have no guts to tell them to go away because if you do,
      the rest of the family might get upset, turn and walk away too.

      Google knows that as long it going to keep backlinks myth alive, it won't become another
      Bing and that's where Matt coming talking out of both sides of his mouth because G. can't
      afford not at least at this point dismiss backlinks for good.

      Exactly, not talking about them profusely as before because G. just can't continue to talk
      about stuff that can be bought and sold by millions, Matt has mention backlinks because
      just imagine uproar if he have avoided doing that. To Matt's credit, he was trying to send
      clear and loud message to SEOs to stay away from backlinks, of course doing that in
      so many words and instead to concentrate on building sites.

      Backlinks are thing from the past. Yes G. is using something that resembles old system
      but much more sophisticated system based on referrals, which cannot be bought or sold.

      For example or you can call it delusions, which I'm sure time will be the judge who's wrong..
      Your site sells electronics. You have posted TV set for sale whereas model of that TV
      happen to have reviews from Amazon, prices from eBay, articles from Wikipedia and so
      on, which G. uses to assign ranking based on importance of information.

      Does it sound crazy to you? If yes, then you're strong believer that G's staff too stupid
      to figure out some better than backlinks system.



      fastreplies
      • [4] replies
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
  • I notice that irawr doesn't have a signature link of any kind, especially one promoting any kind of link selling, so I'm not sure what "turf" he'd be protecting.

    It seems like there are a number of people here who feel that way towards you. There are more than a couple of posts about ranking using backlinks as the method of ranking, and you've ignored them all.

    Actually, I addressed that in Post #13, and irawr addressed it in Post #22, so the ball is in your court as far as further explanations. And there are a lot more than 5 backlinks to the site (try using multiple link checkers to see that). And "top 50" is nothing to brag about - even "top 5" is nothing to get excited about for a very low search volume keyword (which is what "second hand depot" is).

    And for about the 3rd time, why not tell us your theory on exactly what Google is using to rank pages, other than "it's not backlinks."
  • Don't make things complicated here, backlinks and content are equally important and necessary.
  • I wonder why Google still ranking this kind of site and has nothing to offer for the target audience. Google's basis is only title and description. So if I'm the user i will not waste my time visiting this site.
  • Saw this video 1 year back and did not even find the better video till now. till date it is best video of matt cutts. advice on the video are great everyone who has their own website. worth watching
  • Banned
    Lol at the Google rant but he ignores Google since 2007.

    My bet is Google ignores him more than he ignores Google.
  • Everyone is saying content is king, but how can people find you without backlinks, so it is kind of chicken and egg thing.
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      That's actually exactly the problem and why I think it's so incredibly difficult for people to wrap their heads around SEO.

      You need people coming to your site or you will never get natural links without building them. But without links, no matter how good your content is, you won't really get much traffic. So it takes an enormous amount of time kind of going back and forth between content production and link building.
  • [DELETED]
  • This, I guess? This is what Google does now, and why we should all ignore backlinks? This is why "backlinks as we know are dead"?

    "G. uses to assign ranking based on importance of information." That's what the system based on backlinks is about, and why people talk about "quality" of backlinks rather than "quantity." It's the whole idea behind PageRank, and determining which backlinks is worth more than others. Can it be gamed? Sure, to some extent. It's what most of us are trying to do. Is the system perfect? No. So Google is constantly working to make it better (deindexing major PBNs, expecting nofollow on links from user-contributed links such as in forum signatures, and so forth).

    Your proposed system would certainly be open to getting gamed as well. You don't think there'd be "Amazon review sellers" popping up all over the place, selling you 10, 25, 100 reviews on the product of your choice? Additionally, your system is geared for reviews of products sold on big sites such as Amazon and eBay. What does that have to do with all the products being sold at other sites - all the many smaller ecommerce sites? If the Super Duper Toaster gets many good reviews at Amazon, how does that tell Google whether to rank the Toaster Heaven site above or below the Toaster King site?

    Your system is also geared entirely for ecommerce websites - sites that have "things" that can be reviewed. There are millions of searches every day that don't have to do with buying a product. With your "review" system how does Google determine rankings of sites if a person searches for "is global warming real"? Amazon reviews? eBay reviews? A site needs to be specifically mentioned in a Wikipedia article on global warming in order to get ranked?

    It certainly would be nice if Google could somehow figure out a means of incorporating a non-gameable review system as part of their algorithm that affected some search results. But it would need to be something that couldn't be gamed and would affect only some searches. It would only be a small part of the algorithm. It would be foolishness to use that to replace the backlink-based system. So keep dreaming.

    Another dream would be for Google to incorporate social media signals in search results. Again, it would need to be something not easily gamed, and would only affect a subset of searches (there are way too many businesses/niches that the social world has no interest in). Aside from Google+, Google has no control of social media and can't track the inside information (Facebook, Twitter etc can lock out Google at any time should they give Google information in the first place, and in any case would never release all the information they have as to what constitutes a real or fake Like, etc.). So having social signals be a big part of the search algorithm is for now just another big dream, much like your idea that Google now uses reviews instead of backlinks in ranking determination.
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      4.63 billion pages indexed by Google.

      There's only 7.4 billion people on Earth.What is Google going to hire half the entire planet to review the internet?

      Wow...

      Dude... That would lead to literally the entire planet arguing about internet reviews.

      What are we going to have a global election process for every single search term?

      "Sigh, somebody typed a search into Google that was never searched before, get the entire planet ready to vote on this..."

      Will we be able to run as elected officials over keywords? Can I run as President for the keyword "Credit Card Application." I won't be corrupt, I swear.
      • [1] reply
  • I think backlinks can play good role in getting traffic to your site. also if you content is good and healthy then it would be great along with backlinks.
  • [DELETED]
  • Of course Google's staff is smart enough to make a system better. They have been continually doing this over the years, and will continue to do so. What has that got to do with your claim that the new, improved system of "reviews" is now in place? Nothing.

    Same as above. The argument was never about that the backlink-based system will go on "forever." Nothing to do with how the system works now (backlink-based).

    That's odd. You include yourself in saying that none of "us" have any idea what Google will do, yet you emphatically state that it's pointless to worry about backlinks because Google now has a better system in place.

    Yeah, and for 5 years people have been using the publicly available PR information to rank pages and make money. This is tech, tech changes. So, were those people who made money on SEO using the publicly available PR information stupid for doing so, for 5 years, because "eventually" it would end?

    I'm pretty sure there's a strong consensus here on the answer to that one.
    • [ 2 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • Banned
      I said that because it will. The algorythm might change and it might be less important. Which is likely. But why would they ever eliminate links entirely? It's how the internet works, right?

      I'm actually totally glad public PR is finally gone and confirmed to be gone forever. Now it takes actual skill to do this, or at the very least, people have to assume that it takes very high quality, which takes skill or money to invest.

      Public PR just created a situation where people could do SEO on training wheels.

      It actually ended quite some time ago when the PR updates started to become much less frequent, so if you were doing SEO with public PR and you're still successful today, guess what? You're only going to do better and better over time since it's going to be much harder to figure out how to do SEO for new people now, there's no way to know what you are doing actually works other then looking at your analytics. So the exact opposite of what this FR is saying will be true, the game isn't over for us, it's just beginning.

      Eliminating public PR gives an advantage to successful SEOs, not the other way around. Being one of the few people who got to test things during the periods of public PR just gives you massive job security. If you're an SEO and you had that experience, I would definitely put that experience at the top of your resume. "Tested SEO Strategies during the era of public Page Rank"
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [1] reply
  • Banned
    [DELETED]
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed