Backlinks Gone Bad

Backlink strategy creates problems for newer sites.

[scottb]

Imagine a site that launches in in the late 1990s. It's not a very good site, but the owner manages to get many backlinks because it just didn't have much competition. Those backlinks were all dofollow because nofollow didn't exist.

Fast forward to today. It's still not a very good site, but it still has dozens if not hundreds of dofollow backlinks. Quite a few of the backlinks come from dead sites that have been abandoned.

This site ranks at the top of Google search results for important keywords because it has so many dofollow backlinks from nearly 20 years of life.

Newer and much better sites get their own backlinks, but the majority of them are nofollow because that's the standard practice now. They can't compete with the old, low-quality site because Google has made so many sites use no follow. Yet Google still uses dofollow as an important ranking signal.

Fair or not?

[tangor]

Sorry, I thought this was a thread about wild naked backlinks doing all those...

Never mind!

More than likely you are seeing a legacy effect, not priority for OLD backlinks with nothing (default back then was dofollow, you didn't have to state it). It could also just mean the old site is still good as far as content is concerned. I wouldn't make a mountain out of molehill on this one... g has reduced backlink values across the board for several years. I don't believe they have a soft spot, or special love, for old back links.

[martinibuster]

Newer and much better sites get their own backlinks, but the majority of them are nofollow because that's the standard practice now.

It is not the standard practice to no-follow links. The absolute majority of all links are do-follow. This is an indisputable fact.

Are you filtering your outreach candidates so as to target only the highest quality?

[scottb]

Tangor, this thread IS about wild naked backlinks. I just haven't posted the photos yet.

One example is a site that embeds photos it is pulling from an external government site. The page has no original content, but hundreds of backlinks.

I understand it may be a molehill in certain situations. In this case, it is a mountain when such a page dominates search results over sites that have original, thoroughly researched and updated content.

[scottb]

Martinbuster, nearly all of the major sites where I have any interaction now use nofollow links -- Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Moz, Answers, Pinterest, Flickr, StackExchange, the majority of WordPress sites I visit and many others that I won't bother to list.

The site I am trying to boost has intense competition from much larger brands. Most of the smaller players that might have been outreach candidates have been wiped out in the last few years.

[tangor]

One example is a site that embeds photos it is pulling from an external government site. The page has no original content, but hundreds of backlinks.

With additional info there's additional commentary:

Are we talking about the same badlinks gone bad or is this just an example?

In the instant (your example) it is quite possible that a crap website can cull/select and embed the best of a gov site for an interest that has no time for labyrinth gov sites and have get all those back links, from the gov site, too.

Might be more interesting (in general terms) if you state what you are actually attempting to rank/promote and why backlinks are essential to get that done.

[martinibuster]

...nearly all of the major sites where I have any interaction now use nofollow links -- Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+, Moz, Answers, Pinterest, Flickr, StackExchange,

None of those sites are useful for direct link acquisition. They aren't even sources for editorially given links. Those are links you make yourself. Those are not outreach targets. The problem is not the web. The problem is your strategy.

the majority of WordPress sites I visit

Again, the problem is your strategy, especially if you're depending on self-generated comment links.

WordPress does not wrap outgoing links in no-follows by default. What you need to do is understand that the problem is not the web. The problem is your strategy.

[scottb]

Tangor, I was just using that site as an example of one that gets high rankings because of outdated backlinks.

I am attempting to regain the rank of some important pages on a site that has dropped in recent years because of growing competition from larger brands. When I compare my pages to others, I see that mine have original and in-depth content, while the others are large brands with more backlinks. I have even seen big brand pages with just two paragraphs on them get high rankings.

I can't compete on brand. If backlinking is still the #1 ranking factor (according to the annual Moz survey), then I must find away to attract more backlinks even though they are now much harder to find because of nofollow. Otherwise, I might as well shut the site down.

[scottb]

Martinbuster, those sites WERE useful for direct link acquisition because they used to be dofollow. You said nofollow was not a standard practice. I listed them as examples of sites that have switched from dofollow to nofollow.

Please try not to judge my strategy based on a few forum posts. I've been working online full time since the early 1990s. I do understand the low value of comment links and the high value of outreach targets when you can find them.

Some sites have an easier time of getting backlinks than others. Success is only partly due to effort. Luck matters too.

[tangor]

Is the site dead?

We live in a world of increasing competition. The web grows ever larger, thus the slice of the pie you hope to get is that much thinner. Nothing is going to change that metric .... other than:

External promotion (radio, tv, newspapers, mag, other general media), handbills in your local grocery parking lot, word of mouth, have a value (and this is the biggie) a value that exceeds the competition. Also, deal with expectations and realities.

A number of sites I put up 10-20 years ago generated xx. These days the same sites with no alteration generate x. But one site, worth the effort where cash investment was put exterior went from xx to xxxx.

The old adage "if you want to make money you have to spend money" is true. Backlinks alone won't cure it because all of the major search engines have diminished that ranking value, but ordinary salesmanship will. You just have to find your method ... and sometimes it won't be on the web. On the "old site" I mentioned all it took was a celebrity endorsement (and residual).

Be inventive and, for goodness' sake, don't believe all the old SEO myths re: backlinks!

[scottb]

The site is not dead. It is something I do in my spare time when I'm not working with clients. It has had solid double digit growth rates with audience. But I have been driving growth with other tactics. Key pages are struggling.

Your point is well taken. I try to maintain flexibility with my business and my income sources.

Moz seems to be holding on to those SEO myths.

[moz.com ]

[martinibuster]

Those are social media sites. In the world of link building, they are not ideal link acquisition targets, even IF they were do-follow.

Moz seems to be holding on to those SEO myths.

Yes, they have a history of promoting myths. For example, there's the myth that Facebook likes are a ranking factor. That's a Moz myth they promoted. If you wish to be able to discern myth from truth, when reading those stories, look for the link to a research paper or patent. Then you'll know the hypothesis has a foundation and is plausible. Plausibility is the our industry's gold standard. Everything else is smoke, things someone made up that have no basis in reality.

[edited by: martinibuster at 7:48 pm (utc) on Mar 1, 2016]

[scottb]

I understand and agree.