homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 23.22.29.137
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: martinibuster

Link Development Forum

    
Importance of getting new inbound links continuously
majjk




msg:4143241
 9:15 pm on May 28, 2010 (gmt 0)

My main link development philosophy is that it is important to get new inbound links continuously, i.e. every week I need to get a certain amount of incoming links in order to stay constant or to rise in the SERP. As I haven't seen this being talked about lately (maybe I missed it...), can people please confirm I'm not focusing on the wrong things here...

Thanks in advance

 

tangor




msg:4143480
 8:47 am on May 29, 2010 (gmt 0)

Welcome bwerner!

However, links even out over the course of time. And the longer a site exists the more stable the serp... until the next surge happens. I know folks won't like this, but how many super models are on the covers of all the limited artsy phartsy mags at any time?

But if you are Blue Chip you'll still be up there. That's what you want to work at!

SunnyG




msg:4144306
 11:29 am on May 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

Thats good strategy even I do that for my site and got the positive results too. But you need be careful while doing that. Do not get links from spams sites. Also avoid buying links. These are the reasons of penalization in Search Engines.

Btw I think its better to create something useful for your web users like free-tools, lists of data something like that. If your users find it useful then they may bookmark or give a link back from their website.

aristotle




msg:4144570
 11:57 pm on May 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

As a site gains rankings and traffic, more people will see it, and therefore more people will link to it. That's what would happen naturally. To state it mathematically, the number of new backlinks should increase in proportion to the amount of traffic the site receives.

So if most of your backlinks come from artificial link-building, then in order to duplicate what would happen naturally, you will need to keep increasing the number of links you build to keep up with increases in traffic. Otherwise, the Google algo would be able to see that most of the backlinks aren't natural. So as your traffic increases, you need to increase your link-building in proportion.

majjk




msg:4144573
 12:04 am on Jun 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

So if most of your backlinks come from artificial link-building, then in order to duplicate what would happen naturally, you will need to keep increasing the number of links you build to keep up with increases in traffic. Otherwise, the Google algo would be able to see that most of the backlinks aren't natural. So as your traffic increases, you need to increase your link-building in proportion.


Good point. Though I can't make sure that the number of my "artificial" links increase according to the improved rank (links would at some point go through the roof), I'll certainly keep it in mind and try to somewhat copy a natural pattern.

micklearn




msg:4144664
 4:13 am on Jun 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

<quote>As a site gains rankings and traffic, more people will see it, and therefore more people will link to it. That's what would happen naturally. To state it mathematically, the number of new backlinks should increase in proportion to the amount of traffic the site receives.
</quote>

Sorry, I find that to be, in a way, wishful thinking. What happens to a site/pages in the rankings when none of the visitors to a page own a site/blog? (No links will be forthcoming in that case.)

They might find a page very useful, and might even find an option to "like" or "share" a page but in reality they don't have an option that can't/won't eventually be rigged by a team of spammers.

Are we expected to sign up for site-related forums, Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook, etc. going forward - and drop links everywhere?

buckworks




msg:4144691
 5:13 am on Jun 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

I agree that the majority of visitors will have neither the ability nor the inclination to post a link. However, given enough traffic, eventually someone will show up who does.

The challenge is to promote your site enough for that person to come along. And then another.

I have one site that seemed like slow clockwork when it was new, a new organic link that I hadn't asked for would show up "in the wild" about once per ten thousand visitors. Other sites have needed less traffic than that, while some have needed more. I expect the ratio would vary a lot with different topic areas.

That doesn't prove much, it's just some unscientific observations on a small sample, but I offer it in case it's useful for framing expectations.

majjk




msg:4144823
 11:28 am on Jun 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

So if most of your backlinks come from artificial link-building, then in order to duplicate what would happen naturally, you will need to keep increasing the number of links you build to keep up with increases in traffic. Otherwise, the Google algo would be able to see that most of the backlinks aren't natural. So as your traffic increases, you need to increase your link-building in proportion.


OK, was a bit late when I replied yesterday, so didn't write all my thoughts...

While I agree with the thinking to a certain degree, this is my objection; if a page is expected to get as many links as their SERP indicate, then there would never be any change in the SERP. If I rank somewhere on page 2, then any inbound links that are above what is expected for that position will either be ignored by the great G or your page/site will be penalised. Somehow I think this thinking have a place in the algo, but maybe as a damper of some sort.

What I believe is more significant (and here I am soon to be shown right or wrong in my own experiment) is that if you acquire links faster than your surrounding opposition, then you can expect to rise in the SERP, until the pace you acquire links are similar to the other pages near you in the SERP.

aristotle




msg:4145291
 11:34 pm on Jun 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

I've experienced this on my own sites. When they were new, and didn't get much traffic, they hardly got any natural links, and I built links artificially. Then gradually, as their rankings improved and traffic increased, they began to get more nad more natural links. I've even stopped artificial link building on three of them, but still do it on the fourth.

Makaveli2007




msg:4153610
 2:09 pm on Jun 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

@OP: There's some thread where 'wheel' participated and mentioned he was surprised that his sites, that he hadnt built links to in multiple years were still ranking (in competitiv niches, if I remember c orrectly).

I had thought about this topic before - wouldnt the rate at which a website acquires links ('naturally':-)) be a better sign of quality then how many it has accumulated over its lifetime? A one year old site that has half as much link authority pointing to it as a 20 year old site might actually be the better one... but doesnt seem to be that way in reality

wheel




msg:4153790
 8:18 pm on Jun 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

My websites gather 0 links naturally. Even when they are ranking at the top. Nobody links to me without being asked, paid or extorted. And I have a useful site with acres of unique, valuable content, amongst the best in the industry.

And I don't think anyone links to my competitors naturally either.

I suspect the idea of continuous acquisition of links is simply too noisy to use. they can't incorporate everything, particularly if it only makes sense 50% of the time and the other 50% of the time it means nothing.

In the case of 'continuous' acquisition, I don't believe it helps ranking at all. Don't trip and filters when building, it doesn't matter if you get 10 today and nothing, or 1 a month for 10 months. As noted, I've got numerous sites that have ranked for many years, untouched, with 0 link growth (naturally or promoted).

In fact I've sold a few sites in my niche through the years. Two in particular stand out in my mind because I keep telling the owners to hire someone like martini or similiar to get some more links. And the owners are just too darn lazy, because they've got an entire business humming around the website with no appreciable change in ranking. I can tell them that this can change, but it falls on deaf ears - they've been ranking, untouched, for 5 years. So my proclamations of doom go unheeded.

majjk




msg:4153808
 8:58 pm on Jun 16, 2010 (gmt 0)

In the case of 'continuous' acquisition, I don't believe it helps ranking at all.


so what does help your ranking... generally speaking?

wheel




msg:4154392
 7:12 pm on Jun 17, 2010 (gmt 0)

More, old, high quality links. Get lots of super high quality links, you should be able to sit on that for years with little to no further work.

Sounds easy I suppose. :)

Whitey




msg:4155516
 6:46 am on Jun 20, 2010 (gmt 0)

A few quality links to a site with unique content can certainly keep a site going seemingly for ever.

But that's not the case in competitive niches where others are consistantly acquiring links. You need to match or better them whilst taking care with a balanced link profile.

Mark_A




msg:4155885
 8:26 am on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Trouble is, inspiration, and who to target, after the obvious ones have been looked at.

I spent some time over the last month working on links for a B2B B&M site and as a result have 10 inward links established, no link exchanges or purchases, and another 10 requested which are hopeful but where we have not yet been listed.

I processed 87 sites in that time looking for links.

Now, I am a bit lost for where to look futher. All the low hanging fruit have been eaten! :-)

Where do you look for continued link opportunities?

wheel




msg:4155967
 12:20 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)


But that's not the case in competitive niches where others are consistantly acquiring links. You need to match or better them whilst taking care with a balanced link profile.

My experience leads me to disagree with this statement completely.

In competitive niches where people are constantly acquiring links, those links are rarely high quality, on topic links.

majjk




msg:4155970
 12:28 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

But that's not the case in competitive niches where others are consistantly acquiring links. You need to match or better them whilst taking care with a balanced link profile.


My experience leads me to disagree with this statement completely.

In competitive niches where people are constantly acquiring links, those links are rarely high quality, on topic links.


While I agree that a lot of those links tend to be of rather poor quality, are you really saying that you don't have to "match or better them whilst taking care with a balanced link profile", i.e. you don't have to beat them at their own game?

Mark_A




msg:4156009
 1:43 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

Thing is, so far I have been finding linking opportunties from those who link to my competitors. But that way is doomed because I will never overtake my competitors, I will just follow behind them.

There has to be a better way, anyone care to tell me what it is? :-)

Crush




msg:4156034
 2:29 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

any link'll do as long is it not part of a link network.

wheel




msg:4156062
 3:25 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

"match or better them whilst taking care with a balanced link profile

I'm saying that if you develop a really high quality link profile, with an emphasis on quality not quantity, and not freshness, then you can rank without much further ongoing concern.

Algo changes come and go, so some sites float up and then disappear. Do it right the first time and you should be able to stick around for many years with no further effort. The trick is doing it right the first time.

Whitey




msg:4156323
 10:37 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

From what i understand the SE's consider the regularity and rate of IBL acquisition as part of an overall trust factor, amongst other things.

Just hearsay from sources working in SE's. I have no idea of the further details though.

wheel




msg:4156350
 11:40 pm on Jun 21, 2010 (gmt 0)

From what i understand the SE's consider the regularity and rate of IBL acquisition as part of an overall trust factor, amongst other things.

We had a conversation about this a while ago where I disputed this - with anecdotal evidence. I made no friends. You can't sell ongoing seo services unless there's an ongoing need. If you can do SEO 'well' for three months then rank for 5 years, there's no need to pay a monthly fee is there?

The first SEO I did was over 5 years ago, I built links for about 3 months. It has not had any SEO done to it since. It ranks front page today for what I would consider to be the top industry term. it gathers no links organically.

Three years or so ago I did SEO on another site, then sold it about 2 years ago. Again, no SEO in the intervening time period. The new owner is happily still ranking in a competitive industry.

So maybe regularity and rate of IBL is a ranking factor, but I've never seen any indication that this is the case. I have seen indication that one can rank without this.

And since in my industry links never come naturally, how can they use it as a factor. Unless they get into different link building patterns for different industries, my goodness. There's bigger issues than worrying about that. If you're building top quality links the last thing I'd be doing is spreading them out over time like they're on rations. You'll never have too many too fast if you go only super high quality, I don't think you can build top quality links fast enough to trip a penalty. When I'm working hard at link building I was lucky to get a few a day.

Whitey




msg:4156486
 3:18 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

I have seen indication that one can rank without this


Certainly ..... and also it's worth considering the value of aged links as part of that " trust " consideration.

But with highly competitive verticals consistency is something not to risk compromising on , whilst doing it wisely. The other risk is the cost of maintaining new links that are not needed, and that can sometimes occur when a webmaster is worried about breaking the linking patterns of the past - a catch 22 .

Throw away and strongly branded sites probably don't need to worry about this.

wheel




msg:4156748
 11:48 am on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

The other risk is the cost of maintaining new links that are not needed, and that can sometimes occur when a webmaster is worried about breaking the linking patterns of the past - a catch 22 .

Well, to put it more succintly, all of my 'link patterns' look like:
- new site
- burst of link building activity
- no more link activity

and once in a while,after a couple of years there'll be a second round of link building activity then nothing.

And I've never seen any problems with doing that. In fact if I was going to speculate, I'd say that in my experience link building bursts help you rank. Of course that's nonsense, the real answer is continuity doesn't matter to rankings.

majjk




msg:4156761
 12:06 pm on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

Well, to put it more succintly, all of my 'link patterns' look like:
- new site
- burst of link building activity
- no more link activity

and once in a while,after a couple of years there'll be a second round of link building activity then nothing.

And I've never seen any problems with doing that. In fact if I was going to speculate, I'd say that in my experience link building bursts help you rank. Of course that's nonsense, the real answer is continuity doesn't matter to rankings.


Out of curiosity, in your link building bursts, are you acquiring one-way links or reciprocal ones? And is it mainly quality links or any type of links (as long as it is a link...)?

wheel




msg:4156823
 2:27 pm on Jun 22, 2010 (gmt 0)

one ways only, tightly focused on quality and relevance.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / Link Development
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved