Makaveli2007 - 7:54 pm on Mar 5, 2010 (gmt 0)
Interesting, your last two paragraphs sound like you agree that it's not only about finding a way to be better at something than other people (like the top 10 ranking websites)...but that being better at X only matters if you can find people who care enough about X to feel motivated to link to it.
Did I get this right?
(or maybe you dont think its as crucial as I try to make it :-), because you normally dont have any issues finding someone who 'cares' about it?)
When I first heard (or well read) that bit of advice by you on here, I was sort of thinking 'Sounds nice in theory, but most people Ive told about broken(!) links in the past didnt even remove them. Would they really remove a link to a competitor and give that link to me if my site is better?...if they dont even care enough to replace a broken link?!'
But then (quite a bit later admittedly!) I realized that
your success rate with it might be relatively high if you can be better at something that somebody truly cares about (having the only truly accessible site + targeting websites whose visitors pretty much need them (marketing to a need is never a bad idea, I guess))
What I meant to say is that the strategy of being better than your competitors at something is *only* a good link building strategy, if you can identify a group of potential linkers who will truly care about it (but then it might be very effective).
Then again, maybe you dont even have to overly focus on finding a group of potential linkers who 'care' about your competitive advantage a ton......but it might be enough to simply target webmasters who care about their own website's quality a lot: E.g. you could do a backlink check to a competitor, and out of the 10,000 sites that link to them, you could try to further drill down and only target those webmasters who edit their sites daily.
That way you shouldnt have the problem of wasting your time with webmasters who dont even replace a broken link.