It's not the future of Google - it's always been like that and G has always tried their best dealing with things like that.

If you have a LOT of QUALITY content with a few backlinks - you can rank on the first page over time, but it requires a lot of patience.

Yeah. And patience I do not have

The most important thing we all need to remember is that Google won't display all Back links.

Everyone just assumes that link:domainname.com will show exactly what link has helped who rank high, this is wrong....

Google has never and will never display all back links to a site for the fear of being reverse engineered.

So its really hard to say why someone has ranked higher than the other...or pin point a certain link or a piece of content that's pushed one site ahead of the other...

From my personal experience, yes google favors .com's a lot more than the others...not sure if it looks down upon .info....

Relevant backlinks' fits Google's description of how you should get backlinks in the first place...you are supposed to have content on your site that makes people link to you...and if someone's linking to you, then there's a good chance that they are in the same niche or market...

According to Terry Kyle (Backlinks expert) relevant backlinks are NOT important

[DELETED]

Read.
Hilltop algorithm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ftp://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/pub/reports...5/hilltop.html

Relevancy affect in many ways, one of them is getting better ranking ( as per Google guideline) but most important is the targeted traffic which we will be getting from such relevant websites where we manage to have our link.. no matter whether it's from a profile page or from signature.
.info domains can also be rank better if effective SEO strategies are implemented with continued efforts.

[DELETED]

Belief in ones self is 90% of the battle!

I sure hope so. Again, thanks for clearing that out.

I work with SEO professionally but I still had some doubts surrounding that topic. All my competitors have links (with the correct anchor text) from irrelevant pages. And they rank well too... and that is making me mad

Actually, I'm the one with a keyword in my domain. Too bad Google is starting to devalue that sort of thing.

I've been getting my website listed on a lot of relevant and authoritative websites. That was about a month ago, I guess. So I assume I'll be seeing results soon.

I've got about 100 indexed pages which each and one contains more than 300 words. And I'm a writer when I'm not doing SEO - so I know quality content.

The title is as catchy as possible, believe me. I'm 18, I know that kind of stuff

If you post the key-phrase and which link is yours I can do a quick check and see if I can figure out why they're beating you.

But you are probably correct in thinking you will start to soon see results. Results won't always (if ever) happen overnight. You seem like you know what you are doing so I'm sure your patience will pay off!

It hopefully will. And I'm afraid I can't supply you with the URL/keywords as the website is written all in Swedish. But thanks for the offer, anyways

This...Then this...OK. Slow down partner. I gave your other thread some latitude because you're new and perhaps trying to massage a rep here, but it really needs to be said that you should watch who's back you try to stand on in order to gain respect and authority regarding your opinions.

1. Terry Kyle is not only a well known Backlinks/SEO Ninja, he's been conducting experiments regarding this very subject for a very long time, and publishing results as they occur. You can look at a bit of Terry's "street cred" here. In fact I think it's likely good for you that today is Xmas, because I personally know about 8 heavy hitting Warriors in the SEO world who would have already torn you a new one for trying to discredit his advice. He has a stellar reputation here and on his own forum, and if it comes to a choice between what he says and what you say, he's gonna win every time. Just sayin'.
2. Link farms = "non relevant backlinks" in your arguments, yet they are NOT the same thing at all. This seems to be the biggest [read: extreme] alternative to your "relevant content only" commandment. Point in fact: Non relevant backlinks (that have nothing to do with "link farms") help to rocket sites to the top of SERPs all the time. If I was stupid enough to give up one of any random 10 niches I rank well for (which I'm not) I could show you with pages of examples as to how I know this intimately. But really, before you consider debating with me, offer some form of proof that backs up your blanket discredits, because I have around 5 years of case studies that says otherwise.

My second point (above) is exactly why cats like Sweely have trouble against competition using "non relevant" links. And it has precious little to do with on page SEO in most cases. Most competition in my larger niches have picture perfect on page SEO, some very high PR "relevant" incoming links, .edu and .gov included, all with similar metrics to my sites; yet I'm consistently ahead in rank with sheer superior numbers of relevant + NON relevant incoming links (along with other factors of course). In some cases I'm ahead with far less content and newer domains. Again, I'm not just suggesting this, I've seen the results and replicated the case a number times. My bank account regularly thanks me for it.

And I should also point out that Paul said the one thing here that is missing in these arguments all too often. It's not simply about backlinks, relevant or not. There are many factors involved that are necessary to maintain good SERP. But specifically to this "relevant vs non relevant" argument, it is deemed relevant by google Gods when you place your contextual anchor text on linking sites - thus that link becomes relevant. If your niche is dental hygiene and your anchor text link comes from a high PR car insurance site, it is still considered relevant if you have anchor text "relevant" to your site.

I've just said "relevant" more in this post than I have in the entire year.

Listen, I'm not coming down on you personally. That's my disclaimer. Having made that qualification, you really shouldn't come swooping into a forum and touting what you think you know as absolute fact - slamming someone in the process. What you have is a strong opinion on the matter, and as with everyone, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone's got one.

You can discount what I'm saying as argumentative but that is truly not my intention here. Really mate, cool it with all these blanket statements and commandments about NON relevant content being "useless" and counter productive. They are part of a sound SEO strategy. Link farms? You're absolutely right that they can and usually are harmful. But there's a difference.

Equating a link farm to a non relevant back link is like comparing a Toyota to a Twinkie and then slamming the Toyota because it tastes bad. I understand you have an opinion on the matter but my advice is to do so with a lot less exclamation points and CAPS LOCK emphasis. Otherwise you'll spend most of the time on Warrior being pwned by some pretty heavy hitters.

I have never been this confused before.

Relevant back links are far better, quick and everlasting than non relevant back links.

OK, I'll try and be as clear as I can.

Here's an example of what some of us are talking about. A friend of mine was whinging and moaning that his site - in a relatively small niche - was stuck at position 9 for his keywords. His niche is as NON IM as it gets. It's a medical micro niche. He had been working hard to increase google position for about 4 weeks. He added content, he wrote articles. He found "Relevant" blogs and posted relevant comments. Still, he didn't budge.

I told him to try an anchor text link in his signature at a political forum he regularly contributes, as well as to one of my high PR health sites. Bear in mind that's only 2 more anchor text links. He whined some more, saying "but their not relevant to my niche!" Long story short he tried it.

What happened? He sailed to position 3 within a day of doing this, and stayed there. He's now at #1 because he instantly stopped buying into the "relevant only" argument and started getting links where he could.

The point is that he made that political forum and my health site a "relevant" link by providing contextual anchor text back to his site.

So if you think that in order to get your "xyz" keyword to #1 you should only link from other "xyz" related sites, as some here are implying is "the only way to do it", you will consistently lose to the guy who's getting links from everywhere.

Relevant links are better. Are they quicker to get? Absolutely not. But they are better. Also, page rank of the URL your link is posted on is just as important.

Someone above made a statement about link building isn't everything and people put too much of an emphasis on it. He's right. It is important, but nothing beats good content. If you focus on writing good content (on and off site), everything will fall into place for you. You will be surprised at how many people end up linking to you naturally just because they find your content relevant to their topic.

The link below is a great resource for people looking for a good linkbuilding strategy. The guy who wrote is goes into detail (it is a long read, but it's helpful).

Link building strategy

I strongly recommend checking that out. He goes into detail why certain things such as link farms and links to irrelevant sites do you no good. Give it a read. It should clear things up.

A backlink is a backlink.

Being a relevant backlink can be better because it can draw direct visitors to your site. However, if it is just for SEO, look for high PR backlinks. Make sure the site backlinking to yours is not blacklisted or something

Regards,

El Zorro

"To summarize the above, a link is relevant only when the destination receives the right anchor text, irrespective of the content of the source page. How much the link is counted is a very different question altogether."

Exactly, however it is still important to have relevant links on related sites. That anchor text is crucial, but it also helps to get both a keyword-rich anchor text along with it being on a related site. When you get these kinds of links, you're doing something right.

Really, it doesn't matter all that much if the site linking to you just has your URL in terms of SEO. It's debatable if it even helps at all because there's no keyword based off of that link to rank your site for.

Quality links on high page rank sites with relevant anchor text is the way to go. Also, another thing that most SEO experts look for is how many other outbound links are on the page your link is on. It's generally better for your site to have a backlink on a page that is not plastered with a million other outbound links.

In relevant link, you can earn not only links but also visitors for your site.

"With this you make a very good point. Unfortunately what I've highlighted above is not all you can do, if you're so inclined. If someone has black hat skills and the morals of a small furry animal, they have other options. Most of these BH guys are using software like xrumer, bookmarking demon, senuke, e.t.c... and as sad as it is to say, they get results. They beat cats like you and I all the time. I hate it, but I can't deny it. I've seen it in action and it makes my stomach turn."

This is where you are wrong. They DIDN'T beat you. You beat them. They just achieved a higher search engine ranking. Morals > Money and it seems like you would agree with me on this. I tell you what.......black hatters might make a few more bucks than me, but I promise you I sleep better at night than them!

Google employs a system, a set of algorithms that ensure the user will get the best possible results for their search queries. With any system, some people choose to game it rather than work within it. It sucks that the BH gang have got game, but I'd be remiss to deny that many in that community do, and no one else here should ignore it. Know the enemy, and all that.

This is true, but no matter how well you optimize your site and how many great backlinks you get, there's always the possibility of someone out there doing the same thing as you.......only better. I don't care what you sell, somebody can beat you at your own game doing things the right way. But even so, you can still make a lot of money online without having a #1 ranking for a highly profitable keyword. I know someone that runs a site that is not optimized at all because he doesn't care about the search engines. He gets enough traffic through local, offline marketing, having me write articles for him that link to his site, and his social media pages. He did no keyword research and his title tag is just a giant sales pitch, but it works for him.

Google is doing a better job of shutting out the black hatters. I think in the next couple of years things will really change and it will be more difficult for these types of SEO's to succeed. Every year it seems they are improving in this area. Back in the day site owners would have gateway pages with keywords stuffed to manipulate the search engines. Google forced that practice to end. And in the last couple of years they have done a better job of cracking down on traffic exchange/link farms by holding no weight on these backlinks. It's pretty much impossible to create a computer program that will make it 100% impossible for black hat methods to succeed, but they are getting to closer to where it is really difficult on these types. That's a good thing.

Just keep doing things the right way and your site will flourish........and you will sleep well at night knowing you're a man of integrity. I guarantee it.

The answer is simple. Get both.

If you have good links backing your link profile, crap links pretty much can't touch you.

[DELETED]

Relevant links to the site for several reasons. The main reasons are that helps search engines to find the "theme" of your website, and can invest in its class, which is suitable for the site. Although the number of backlinks are important, quality is important.

[DELETED]

I think the relevance of links help Google better contextualize a website.

Thanks Peter Gibson and 4morereferrals. When checking the backlinks of sites ranked #1, I realized that many of them have a lot of irrelevant backlinks. This did get me confused, because many (most) SEO pros(?) preach that relevant backlinks are "holier than thou".

Your posts cleared it up for me. There's definitely a difference when people who post speak from experience and seeing results, while others say things like, "I suppose", "makes sense", or "Most SEO experts agree".....

Thanks.

Why is it that everyone thinks that a relevant link is when it is placed on a site with relevant topics?

Since when does LINK relevance have to do with Site Relevance?

You can have a very relevant link on a site that is not in the same niche as your site.

Site topics have absolutely nothing to do with LINK Relevance.

In my experience, relevancy is determined in this order
1. Anchor Text
2. Page Content (esp page TITLE)
3. Domain/Site Content or theme

If you can get all 3, great. But you don't need it to rank. Anchor text still rules.

I don't actually believe that forum links, social profile links etc are spammy links if the site they are linking back to offers incredible content. It's hard to get your site noticed unless you get links, so if you have amazing content on your site. Grabbing these links to help it along in the SERPS is perfectly fine to me.

With regards to your initial question, from my own testing, quality and relevance beats the low end links, but quality and relevance means hard work. If Google still allow for profile links to work, I say use them.

Relevant links means success in site promotion. As many relevant links your site has, your site become more popular in search engines.

Yawn, here we go again. Just build links.

Hmm.... whom should people believe:

Terry Kyle - a backlinks expert, who got three of his websites (i think it was three) on Page 1 on google for the keyword "Backlinks", and who tells that "relevant backlinks aren't important"; or some unknown "experts", who say "relevant backlinks are important" based on... emm...hmmm... a hunch?

Didn't want to sound rude, but guys if you have something to say on such an important topic as SEO, then make sure it is based on some facts.

King regards,
Andrii

Okay, so I'm insanely confused. Should I be getting relevant links or not?

Just give me a simple answer. And by relevant links I mean links from pages who have a theme related to mine.

The important thing about backlinks are that they must be relevant links. This means that the sites that are linking to your site, must be about the same topics to let that backlink count.

Backlinks are important in my opinion - especially more important with competition.

I've had pages rank in first place with and without backlinks... depends on the keyword(s).

Better to have them than not is my best advice. Can't say for sure since I don't (haven't) work in the search engine secret society. Just test test and test.

Any updates on this one?

Hi Sweely!
Nice to see You here!
Relevant links are better, but I usually go with irrelevant links if no good relevant links are to be found.
To one of my webshops I have irrelevant links and im number 3 in a tough nische.
Relevant is great but irrelevant links seems to do the job!

Best of luck to your future!

Petter

Relevant links are very important. They were important earlier as well.........but now with google getting heavily on spam site, relevant links are getting more important.
The 3 steps to link building in 2011
good content
relevant links
buzz.....from facebook and other social media sites