What are white hat back linking methods

[sam222]

This question has been asked many times but due to Google strategieis and new updates, back linking methods keep on changing. I want to know if back links really work and if yes then what is the best white hat practice which should really give edge to the keywords. Does old ways of backlinking still work like directories submissions, forums, comments, press releases, articles submissions etc.?

[EditorialGuy]

I'd say "public relations," with the goal of getting coverage from editorial media, blogs, etc. that might (if you're lucky) include a link.

This should not be confused with publishing press releases on so-called PR sites that are nothing more than link mills.

[sam222]

getting coverage from editorial media, blogs, etc.

Does it mean private network of blogs or third party blogs like blogger etc. or others blogs posts?

[martinibuster]

Does it mean private network of blogs or

No.

Build something worth linking to then tell others about it. Several years ago I coined a phrase to describe this process and wrote a blog post all about it. The process is called Cultivating Links.

[lucy24]

what is the best white hat practice

If people see you doing it, it's no longer white hat.

[Shai]

Does it mean private network of blogs or third party blogs like blogger etc. or others blogs posts?

Not sure how you misinterpreted what EditorialGuy correctly stated as buying links from a PBN?

@Martinibuster - I'm going to have to steal that you know... Much better sounding than link earning which I am sick of hearing myself say now.

[aristotle]

Does anyone remember the google "honeymoon period" for newly-launched sites. I haven't seen any mention of it in a long time. But it was a period of a few weeks, starting almost immediately after a site's launch, when google would send it a decent amount to traffic to help get it off the ground, by giving it some exposure and an opportunity to attract some natural backlinks.

Does anyone have any recent experience with launching a new site? Did google send it some good traffic for a few weeks, or is that a thing of the past?

[OldFaces]

Not releasing a new site experience personally - but watching new competitors I've definitely been seeing a honeymoon impact still as recently as mid 2015.

[hasek747]

I've launched 7 websites over the last 3 years and did not experienced a "honeymoon period" on any o them.

[keyplyr]

I always attributed the so-called honeymoon as just the period prior to the algo being applied. There also used to be what was referred to as the sandbox period where a new site was burried for the first month or so. Both were in the days of monthly updates

[RedBar]

Two brand new unique sites this year on previously unused domains, definitely no honeymoon period.

[aristotle]

keyplyr -- As I remember it, the general belief in SEO circles was that the sandbox came AFTER the honeymoon period. Also, this was still the belief in about 2005-2006, because i didn't start learning about SEO before then, and both of these beliefs were still common at that time.

Presumably, Google's honeymoon period was intended to give a new site some exposure and a chance to attract some backlinks. Then the sandbox took effect when google ended the honeymoon and began applying the normal algo to the site, causing the honeymoon traffic to dry up.

[NickMNS]

John Muller on a recent hangout suggested something that could be described as a honeymoon period.

He said that when a new site is launched Google does not have any signals to rank it by, so it ignores some signals for a period while the data is gathered. This would suggest a kind of "boost" when compared to an existing site with the same signals (eg: no backlink profile). However, overtime if the new site does not begin to accumulate positive signals it will simply take its place in the rankings, whereas if positive signals are gained quickly, then the site could jump ahead.

So without a doubt site launch is critical time.

[OldFaces]

Very good find NickMNS.

[keyplyr]

@aristotle & NickMNS - yes, I agree

[FranticFish]

I wonder if Google does the same when a site changes radically (i.e. the domain is re-purposed, or a holding page is built out into a full site)?

[engine]

I want to know if back links really work and if yes then what is the best white hat practice which should really give edge to the keywords. Does old ways of backlinking still work like directories submissions, forums, comments, press releases, articles submissions etc.?

Getting back on the OP topic, links are still the bread and butter, and can help or hinder a site greatly, depending upon the resource. Forget volumes of links. I've always worked on quality: It's far better to have one great quality link than many, many links for worthless sources.

Some of the suggestions in this thread are good, and news sites can play a part, however, press release submission sites no longer provide the quality, just quantity. Of course, if it's a quality story, distributed by a quality distribution service, and it gets picked up by mainstream press, it'll be beneficial. If you've been successful and got a link from an authority, such as WSJ, BBC, etc., or it's a link from a research paper at MIT.

Directories, on the most part, are not worth the effort they once were due to the low quality of so many clones set up just to gain links.

Again, article submissions of quantity are generally abused and mostly worth very little.

Don't think individual keywords, but think about meaning. For example, look at the text of a web page and look at the overall meaning of the page, and not the individual keywords.

What it means is that working harder for quality link development should be a target.