Google: Making Quality Links Is Against Google's Webmaster Guidelines

[Rlilly]

John Mueller said:
Just to add to Hardial's comment -- if *you're* making quality links to your site, then that would be considered against our webmaster guidelines, and by that, those links would definitely not be considered "quality".

IN essence, any link building is now against Google's guidelines. Links must work. So just by the fact you told someone about content on your site, and they decided to link to it. ITs against Google guidelines because you had a "hand" in it.

Google has lost its mind. They cannot control the value of links..

[brotherhood of LAN]

but most search users have moved on

Disagree with that, as "most search users" (I'd gamble) simply use what's put in front of them and if "it works", they use it. Hence why Google paid a bunch of people money to be the default search engine for [insert product here]. But I digress.

It is a tired discussion. Google is probably "to blame" (IMO) for distorting the link graph, but at the time it was a good datapoint to use, and still is regardless of the extra noise.

The discussion always seems to centre around whether "should we do what Google says" or "link naturally as the web enabled us to do". I know some search engines ignore the rel=nofollow because they see it as a Google weakness in vision rather than a useful way to gauge authoritativeness.

Every link should be an endorsement of some sort. Every comment section should be moderated. If a link doesn't belong it should be removed. If a search engine sees it 'just in time' it should wait longer to decide on whether it's measurable.

Google should never get in the way of people linking to each others sites. There really is no excuse. It is indefensible. The hard reality is that SEOs have to bear what Google wants in mind, though.

The only caveat I'd say is that it's entirely up to Google what they wish to define as 'quality'.

[EditorialGuy]

I know some search engines ignore the rel=nofollow because they see it as a Google weakness in vision rather than a useful way to gauge authoritativeness.

"Nofollow" has also been supported by Bing and Yahoo for more than a dozen years. Which search engines don't? Yandex or Baidu, maybe? Are their search results consistently better than those of Google, Bing, and Yahoo?

Every link should be an endorsement of some sort.

That's why I cringe at the phrase "link-building." Still, people or businesses who spend their time and money on links have less time and money to spend on content. That's good news for site owners who focus on serving users.

[Rlilly]

Can Google even find your new site with the most amazing content ever published if there is no links to it, assuming you have not signed up for Google Anyletics and WMT? NO

Word of advise. GO and get links.. all kind of links. Just dont pay or exchange anything for them. Avoid using keyword anchor text links. If you dont have links you will not succeed.

[lucy24]

Can Google even find your new site

If it's a dot com or similar: Yes. Yes, they can.

[EditorialGuy]

Can Google even find your new site with the most amazing content ever published if there is no links to it, assuming you have not signed up for Google Anyletics and WMT? NO

Sounds like a good argument for creating a Google account and submitting a sitemap. (While you're at it, do the same with Bing.)

[aristotle]

About once a year someone starts a thread here to speculate that google's algorithm actually does give positive credit to nofollow links, despite their public denials. The usual argument is that it would make sense to do so, especially since artificial link-builders normally try to get dofollow links, which means that nofollow links are often more natural. So the speculation is that google does it secretly. I've long since lost count of how many times some member here has made this argument.

[browndog]

Word of advise. GO and get links.. all kind of links. Just dont pay or exchange anything for them. Avoid using keyword anchor text links. If you dont have links you will not succeed.

Or better still, create great content that other sites in your niche link to and your readers share via social media.

[ichthyous]

Or better still, create great content that other sites in your niche link to and your readers share via social media.

@browndog That may work for some types of sites, but not others. My content is visual (images) and I am not going to write an entire article explaining my images because 1) nobody cares to read it, they want to see it...2) it wouldn't rank against a lot of sites where the images are mediocre but the pages are wordy (wikis, blogs, etc)...and 3) embedding my images in article style pages cheapens them, it's not the design aesthetic I want nor will it impress the type of client I need.

That would be a complete waste of my time, so I focus on finding quality links to my content. That has worked well, even this year as I have found places which link to my content the traffic to my site has risen. You just have to be careful not to add to many links too quickly.

[EditorialGuy]

About once a year someone starts a thread here to speculate that google's algorithm actually does give positive credit to nofollow links, despite their public denials.

I'm not sure what you mean by "public denials,," but on its Web site, Google says: "How does Google handle nofollowed links? In general, we don't follow them. This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links." That leaves a lot of room for uncertainty about what Google does or doesn't do with nofollowed links. (We can be sure that Google keeps track of such links, for example, because they're bundled in with conventional "dofollow" links in Google Search Console link reports.)

In any case, we simply don't know everything about what or how Google uses links in its search algorithm. But if more and more links are being "nofollowed" by default (and not just because the linking site owners have received payment for them), it seems reasonable to assume that Google is aware of that and is adapting by whatever means it finds necessary.

[iamlost]

What I find interesting, having followed the link, is that the OP there actually asked two questions and John Mueller answered, at best half a question, at worst neither.

The first question was if a link to a subdomain helped just the subdomain or if value passed through to the domain as well.

The second question included the 'if I make' that got everyone excitedly derailed.

We all know the official G response to 'if I make' links so that was no surprise. It also allowed/caused ignoring the first question and/or a nuanced response to the second. Given that the OP was showing his ignorance so openly I'm somewhat disappointed. Unfortunately, that seems pretty much business as usual on the Google 'help' fora.

That it generated an SEO bloggeratti click bait style title tangential thread about 'quality' links on WebmasterWorld is somewhere between sad and silly. That several members had to restate the historically well known to calm/redirect things is depressing.

Link acquisition is a complex multi-faceted process. Few do it well and while several WebmasterWorld members have offered valuable insight over the years it tends to be ignored/overlooked given so many get confused/put off at being asked to read between the lines to discern actual insights.

SEs including G use links for many purposes in many ways and that is unlikely to change (although specifics and weights certainly will) in the foreseeable future. Links are the connecting tissue of the web; merely viewing them as steps up some SE rank methodology is to ignore most of their value and miss leveraging their ubiquitousness.

Webdev is a business and needs to be taken seriously. Or a hobby and even more seriously. As with common sense common wisdom isn't ('wisdom of the crowd' is most often misunderstood and almost certainly misapplied).

There are so many substantive topics that are important to critical to the future of successful smaller sites. Another tabloid-esque manufactured Google storm in a teacup instead is so typical...
Look!
Shiny!

That said the thread sidestepped into some decent commentary.

[csdude55]

Interesting bit of odd logic here...

My sites target local, rural areas. We also offer website hosting, and are often the only host in that region, so we have a lot of local hosting clients.

But since they are on the same network as me, when these local businesses link to my site then Google doesn't recognize it. Or worse, considers it spam.

Considering our target demographic, who else would link to us other than local businesses?

[tangor]

Or... one can use links as they were originally meant to be used and don't lose any sleep over the rest of the foo fa rah...

I never link unless it makes sense for my users, and never worry if anyone links to me as I won't seek it out.

Too many other things to do!