| 10:08 am on Feb 21, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I do believe that link building is about quality, not quantity.
Just this week I landed a UK government link for a fairly new website. It represents the second darn good link the site has received. Within 48 hours it rose up in the serps in a dramatic way for all primary terms its been optimized for.
I'd rather have 3 great links than hundreds of marginally good ones.
| 10:28 am on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Good link is really helpful to get better SERP. However only one or two good link is not sufficient because there is much competition in same theme sites.
| 5:17 pm on Feb 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
One great link can do wonders. A site I was involved with got a link from a major UK exhibition site (household name TV show) a week after launch and that one link (on their brand name) gave them top rankings for one of their key product terms within days.
| 8:03 am on Feb 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
ya really few good quality links are far more better then hundreds of low quality links..the one thing which matters a lot is link from a site which is related 2 ur website..such as SEO training site getting a link from SEO consultant.
| 11:22 pm on Feb 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I believe that getting the top rank can be achieved with a couple of quality links from related websites. No need to enter into competition with links bombardment.
| 5:45 am on Mar 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Can one or two good links make a site? |
Yes sir, unless you're competing against an army of sites with thousands of incoming links each.
| 11:59 am on Mar 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
When you talk about quality links, what do you mean: links from .edu, wikipedia or other great authority websites?
| 12:48 pm on Mar 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yes, even 1 or 2 good links can help.
I did SEO on a site about 2 years ago which had 1 link from PR9 site and rest all were or almost no value. The site was ranking at the top for all the key terms that we used to add in the page.
However, the day the PR9 link was removed all rankings were lost overnight.
| 11:43 am on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I want to do the same with my website soon is get like at most 3 or 5 good links that will bring lots of traffic needed to my site also. But one major question, how much are all of you paying for such a link? I mean a few $100 or a couple of $1,000s for it?
| 12:27 pm on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I second the question. Are you finding a blog and using key words as your name in a comment? Are you purchasing a link? Or exchanging? Thanks in advance for your reply :)
| 2:17 pm on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Payed links will not last forever, not good. So either exchange (some say Google has algorithms to neglect these), or even better produce great content to get natural one-way links to your sites.
| 3:21 pm on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yes, one or two really good links can do wonders; especially, in lower competition industries.
| 8:58 pm on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Payed links will not last forever, not good. So either exchange (some say Google has algorithms to neglect these), or even better produce great content to get natural one-way links to your sites. |
If you start trying to define 'paid links' and 'natural one-way links' you'll soon see that in fact, paid links can last forever. Because distinguishing between paid links and natural links is virtually impossible if done right.
I do believe that in most industries, that relatively few of the right kind of links can have a huge difference. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that 75% of my ranking 'juice' comes from about 6-10 of my backlinks.
The links that are:
- 10 years old
- on my subject matter
- huge backlinks, .edu/.gove level
Those backlinks, I think it doesn't take more than a few to put you to the top. Of course getting those few links is generally extremely difficult.
| 9:49 pm on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Look after those old " good " links - removal of a few good links can be a problem. What goes goes up goes down.
| 10:46 pm on Mar 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
High PR, massive traffic source, and ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO LINK TO,
Its the BBC. [bbc.co.uk] No, really.
| 1:53 pm on Mar 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
It's also worth keeping your eye on the HARO list for journalists writing about your sector.
| 2:26 pm on Mar 22, 2010 (gmt 0)|
its about quality not just mass spam!
| 3:56 am on Mar 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I think quality is not enough, quantity is necessary.
| 9:49 am on Mar 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
While quality vs. quantity does have a clear answer, I would like to hear your views on this. Which is better?
1. A small-medium site that does not update often - so the link I received stays 2-3 clicks away from the main page for a long-term
2. Link from high quality sites (visible PR of 8-9) - but they are so content-intensive that the link to my website disappears into deep archives in just a matter of days
| 12:24 pm on Mar 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
> Can one or two good links make a site?
It's all relative to the competition. I've got to the top of Google with one link because the competition had no links.
| 12:44 pm on Mar 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Also I believe what kind of a product you sell. Depends what everyone sells no?
| 10:20 pm on Mar 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Someone in another thread referenced a PubCon or other appearance by Matt Cutts where he pulled up an internal link checking tool and revealed that the effective links on the website he was 'reviewing' made up about 5% of its total linkage.
I regularly see the odd site on page one that has 10% or much less links by volume compared to the others. There's usually one in every niche I check. Those are the sites that interest me. Work hard, yes - but work SMART too. When you go through the links by hand you can see the quality.
It's not even a question of highly relevant from what I can see - just that the sites doing the linking are undoubtedly quality, busy, popular sites.
| 11:12 pm on Mar 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
that's a point well worth remembering. I just ran the 'money' term in my niche. I've got <5K links. My primary competitor has 40K links, low end stuff. There's another site that has 100K links, a manufacturer of the product in our industry.
Then there's another one of my competitors, has <400 links. I haven't looked at that one in a while - I know he has quality links he built years before I started my main site. I don't recall him having that few links though. Clearly I need to go back and review what he's doing!
| 11:15 pm on Mar 25, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Frantic Fish, thanks for the point (though it should be obvious to me). If one or two links 'make a site', then I've found the link for that 400 inlink competitor. He's got a lot of junk links, but I found a very very interesting backlink I think I can get. I saw it before, but glanced over it. Now I'm going to go ask for a link. (My site is actually more relevant than theirs for this site).
| 9:06 am on Mar 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
You're welcome - it's this forum and its regular contributors that got me thinking and acting this way anyway!
| 3:29 pm on Mar 26, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I too agree with that link building is all about quality than quantity. I also think of it as an on going marketing task that is essential for any business wanting to survive on the internet. There are also thoughts in the SEO world of although recopical linking in more of a thing of the past, I still recommend to clients to get a good balance of different types of links.
| 10:52 am on Apr 24, 2010 (gmt 0)|
What about 500 inbound links from 500 PR2-PR4(index file, not link page) directory sites?
Let's say the page where the link resides has a PR of zero or 1 from the toolbar only of course, not talking blank, some white to it so not yet PR1 but no Zero either. Index file of directory has PR2-4 and fair Alexa ranking.
Would these 500 inbound be worth 1-2 very high page rank links?
| 5:39 am on Apr 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yes, to answer quite simply.
| 5:03 pm on Apr 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Yes, it sure can.
| This 31 message thread spans 2 pages: 31 (  2 ) > > |