Are dofollow backlinks valuable anymore? What is the evidence?

[scottb]

I have a highly targeted but modest website that recently got a dofollow backlink from a large, relevant and high authority website.

I recently got another dofollow backlink to the same site from a massive and only slightly less relevant website.

The backlinks have not made a bit of difference in Google search results for my site. What is the evidence that proves dofollow backlinks have value anymore with Google?

Considering the modest size of my site, I expected at least some impact from the backlinks.

[JesterMagic]

IMO I find any changes to current pages that affect ranking (external or internal) only become apparent after an algo update.

[aristotle]

There's an old theory that google's algorithm waits a while before giving credit for a newly-discovered backlink.

A refinement of the theory is that the amount of credit starts at zero, then slowly rises, reaching a peak after a year or so, and then begins a long slow decline. So very new backlinks and very old backlinks don't have much effect.

[buckworks]

A few thoughts ...

First, how long ago is "recently"? This might just need more time.

Be cautious about how much influence to expect from any particular link. The site linking to you may be Big and Important but what about the page your link is actually on? Is it a Big and Important page within the site, or just an ordinary page among thousands or even millions? Also, how many other links are on the same page? And what are the page's signals of relevance? Any of these might affect what the link will do for you.

Another factor might be what the competition has been doing. What if you got two new inks but the other guy got three? Your links might be doing more good more than you can see. They'll keep you in the race but it takes a lot to actually get ahead.

The bottom line: keep doing whatever it was that earned those new links, even if you can't tell what an individual link is worth. Quality links will always help your cause.

[scottb]

All good feedback. I'll narrow my concern a little more. Have any of you seen recent evidence, such as within the last 6 months to a year, that gaining important backlinks is helpful to your rankings?

[aristotle]

Here's a question: Do these two new backlinks send much traffic to your site?

Some have speculated that google's algorithm gives more credit to backlinks that get clicked.

Regardless, in my opinion the best way to judge a backlink is by how much traffic it sends.

[martinibuster]

If it's from a paid in-content article, it's likely to be drawing from a poisoned well and no longer having an effect, like with what happened with paid links in major magazines a year ago. When those magazines no-followed the paid links the rankings didn't change. The links were already not counting at Google.

[scottb]

As a followup to my original post, I thought you would like to know that I did eventually see quite a boost to my site traffic from Google. Traffic year to date is up 40% versus last year.

Although I have been writing somewhat more on the site, I think the backlink has made an important difference in audience.

AdSense revenue has climbed as well, but not nearly as much.

[toomer_251]

Hi,
I've been having the same questions, as to whether no follow backlinks can help or not. So many opinions and theories out there, it's tough!

[brighteryeg]

dofollow is absolutely valuable but recent Google changes to nofollow attributes raise questions about those. A lot of seo's feel that nf links with keywords in the anchor text are a boost.

[Travis304]

A couple things to note here, in my opinion: Of course, links that get clicked represent quantifiable signals of user interest/intent. Google should (and probably does) certainly consider that click as a signal the backlink is more contextually relevant, thus, it probably will provide stronger "juice", traffic (obviously, right?), rank potential, et al. I just saw this within the last 24 hours, with a press release I wrote and published/syndicated. I had massive click-through from the story (real-time traffic on G Analytics at 8:00 in the morning, when we're usually slow, was up by a factor of 8 to 11), and when I checked the SERPs, the article grabbed the #1 result for that query. Guess I got lucky and pub'd on the story before any news sites or competitors did.

That said, here's my very tangible and recent take on backlinks overall, with a pretty good example: I've started managing a few eComm sites in a very well-defined, specific widget niche. The sites I manage have well-established traffic, they rank top 5 or at least page 1 for their target keyphrases at almost all times, and SEO best practices are adhered to. Consider these sites "healthy", regular ole' sites that dominate (or almost) their market.

I've contributed very many backlinks to these sites in an effort to pump up one of the two sites that likes to bounce between spots 5-12. In SEO, we often talk about getting a single, high-DR backlink from a relevant, authoritative place as impactful, noteworthy, beneficial. I can tell you I've secured comparatively large amounts of credible, relevant backlinks on decent DR (35-45) and high/very high (77-94) sites with guest posts and syndicated content. With volatility, the crazy SERPs since about June, and all the algo updates/smaller updates, I can say, unfortunately, it appears none of these links have helped much! I pruned a lot of bad blog posts and content that performed poorly, or received no traffic. I saw a consistent climb in rankings and traffic, then the last round of wizardry from Google came 'round, and it knocked everything loose.

TL;DR: Basically, my sites' backlink profiles are *way* better than my competitors. I've added many high-DR links in a few months. They appear to have been unable to insulate the sites from volatility, poor SERP performance with no apparent reason or clear indicators that it is justified, etc. Even with optimization and SEO best practices otherwise helping performance improve quite a lot... Before the usual turmoil.