It just means that it is old advice and there might be newer ideas to also incorporate.
Agreed, which is the point of my post. Your statement and my post are in agreement. Also, I apologize for any confusion, my comment was not a response to Aristotle but an addition to the post that preceded mine (otherwise I would have mentioned Aristotle by name). ;)
- It's an old concept.
-It's been blindly
abused (linking to dot gov and dot edu sites for SEO purposes).
- Most importantly:
Checklists and recipes for best SEO best practices make concepts easy to understand but I feel they can also be misleading because historically, to be frank, what's been published on blogs and forums about SEO has lagged behind what the search engines have been doing. Examples are: TrustRank metrics, toolbar PageRank, brand mentions, silos, paid links (at one time it was promoted as white hat), reciprocal links.
The SEO industry tends to latch onto concepts and buzzwords then lurches forward with them for a year or two, until a hand-fed tidbit from Google arrives, usually in the form of a Thou Shalt Not. Then the industry shifts direction. Many years ago paid links were considered white hat on the argument that it was advertising. But that argument was packed away into the closet with the rest of the SEO skeletons when Google explicitly stated they would penalize them. But was it necessary for Google to say that? Many people used common sense and stayed away from third party text link brokers.
But this is the history of the SEO industry, to follow practices without thinking too deeply about those practices. I want to encourage the OP and others to not accept practices at face value but to at least try to understand them and have a more intelligent conversation that goes beyond "do this and do that; avoid doing this and the other"
then sending them away with a pat on the head. Does anyone disagree with having an advanced discussion about the topics at hand?
Or should we keep it simple and dole out the head pats?
What I am proposing is catching up with what the engines are doing by understanding the historical and scientific basis for current best practices. So yes, outlinks are a positive signal. Outlinks are also a negative signal. The search engines incorporate signals for determining relevance. Search engines incorporate signals for determining attempts to game them. There are "newer ideas to also incorporate" about outlinks.
[edited by: martinibuster at 5:00 pm (utc) on Jan 2, 2015]