What exactly are QUALITY BACKLINKS?

Wondering the same thing.

Because, I've used those same "fake links" to rank hundreds of keywords (many competitive), within the top 10.

I guess I've missed something and would like to know where the "real stuff" that works, resides.

Warmly,

Brandi

Quality Links are links coming from Authority and Trusted Websites. Google loves these websites and give value to the links on these sites, too.

I applaud your accomplishment.

However those competitors could have all those links with No anchor text or for totally different anchor text than what youre after.

For example a large site selling 1,000's of products could have 28,000 different links pointing at it for zillions of different keyword combos. If however you picked an obscure keyword combo that they have little or no links targeting nor links with proper anchor text - yes your targetted backlinks with the proper anchor text could be the reason.

I have a competitor that has 30x as many links as me - but they chose to link with anchor text on their product name - that nobody knows about till AFTER they search for a "concept". I backlinked for the concept.

He backlinked for : Joe Dokes Crab Cuisine Guide Crab Bonanza

Me: Cracked Crab Legs | How to cook cracked crab legs | How to crack crab legs etc ...

totally made up example ...

If you search for Joe dokes crab cusine guide - yup he's numero uno. - any of those other three terms - I beat him. But not with just 16 links LOL

What makes the 16 links you reference - so powerful as to overwhelm those competitors? [ in general not specific terms ]

I suspect you meant 100% irrelevant links ? Just a heads up

Hi Tom,

I like you and I think that you are generally a bright fellow, however I feel compelled to call you out on these same topics again. Repeating the same incorrect conclusions, over and over again, may convince some folks they are valid, but in my opinion they are based on false notions.

First, lets deal with your claim that link juice is not diluted by the number of OBLs. You make this claim, in spite of every Google engineer that has discussed it making the counter claim. Google has published the core formula for PageRank and mathematicians and statisticians have reviewed and tested the formula, vouching for it's validity. The formula does not work if you remove the dilution quotient.

So if the proceeding paragraph is true, what then do you base your claim on? I believe the most likely cause of your invalid conclusion lies in the lack of understanding the geometric progression of logarithmic scales, which is what PageRank score is based on. Terry's conclusion seems to completely ignore the fact that PR is a score based on a logarithmic scale.

What he actually discovered was how much of a difference there is between the value of a PR5 and PR6. Even a highly diluted link from a PR6 can be worth more than a non diluted PR5. Anyone who understands the basics of how PR is calculated would expect that.

Now to your second assertion about relevancy. Here again, you seem to base a conclusion on a false notion. The whole notion that search engines look at website topics is completely false in my opinion. Again, this points to a lack of understanding how search engines actually work.

Research on large scale search engines at Stanford University is what Google is based on. The core technology, certain principles, goals and specific algorithms are documented and published by the Stanford research team. While Google has added enhancements over the years, there is no sign that I can see that the core technology has been abandoned. And nowhere in this core technology is the ability to determine website topics and it seems to me that it would be highly detrimental to do so.

Website topics are what directories are based on. Search engines where built to go well beyond the limitations of a directory. They are much more granular in their approach to mining data and therefore deliberately bypass the concept of website topics and focus instead on page topics. This is the fundamental difference between a directory index and a search engine index.

Within the SEO industry there is a saying: The first rule of SEO is search engines rank web pages not websites.

Your incorrect conclusions about relevancy seem to be centered around the false notion that search engines base relevancy on website topics. That is how directories work, not search engines. Google is a search engine, not a directory.

You obviously see the value and importance of relevant anchortext, but in your conclusions you insist on calling the link irrelevant based on a false notion of website topic. Website topics are not part of any search engine algorithm that I have every heard of, all major search engines ignore website topics and are based on page topics.

Let me ask you, is the Kaizen page on wikipedia not relevant to Kaizen principle due to the website topic being about free encyclopedias? That's a silly notion isn't it? If search engines based relevancy on website topics, you would never be able to find that page in a search. You would only find listings for pages that were on websites about Kaizen. Fortunately for us search engines don't work that way, and we are able to find this page quite easily.

Page relevancy factors are determined by a number of elements including the anchortext of OBLs, so it is impossible to have relevant anchortext and be an irrelevant page. The anchortext influences the relevancy of the page topic. After all, anchortext is part of the text of the page, plus it often indicates the primary topic of the page.

I feel it's a shame that you and Terry are misleading so many folks, though I do believe it is unintentional misguidance. Anyone can make a mistake, however it takes character to admit our mistakes.