How many quality links do make a difference to a sites' SEO?

[Hermski]

Hi everyone

I was asking the same question over at CAP, but didn't receive an answer. Well, let's try here too. I'm not intending to spy on anyone, just trying to get a better idea (hence I posted this in the Freshman Forum)

So, I was wondering how many backlinks in a month actually make a difference in respect to your <acronym title="Search Engine Optimization">SEO</acronym> efforts. I'm sure there is no one right answer and it likely depends on a lot of different factors... As I'm having a few quarrels with the god of search engines, I've been spending my time link building, as legit on-page optimization (unique content etc.) is not cutting it at the moment.

So, I was wondering how many links do you usually (intend) to build on a monthly basis (roughly)? Nowadays with 'low quality' links not really adding much value, how many 'good' links do make a difference, broadly speaking? For instance, I see some sites with hardly any backlinks nor much anchor text diversity and they have fairly high PR's and a good flow of traffic.

I'm not the type to build '50' links in a month. Of course, you can always leave your domain signature in posts and so forth, but I am talking the PR3's and 4's or authority sites in general. If for example you managed to get two one way PR4 links in any given month, should you see a difference in regards to your sites' performance or is that just not enough?

Hope someone can give me an idea. Thanks for your help and input everyone!!


MeinOnlineWettanbieter.com
NovolineOnlineSpielothek.com

[-Shay-]

My formula...

100% TRULY unique, interesting, focused content + 0 backlinks = rank just fine.

You can control what is done/posted/said on your site. Theoretically, you cannot control what people off your site do.

Forget link building, focus on your own house and you "should" rank just fine (from my personal experiences).

[casinobonushot]

Very interesting Shay.
Can you tell me for which of your sites are you using this technique ?
Take care

[thebookiesoffers]

My formula...

100% TRULY unique, interesting, focused content + 0 backlinks = rank just fine.

You can control what is done/posted/said on your site. Theoretically, you cannot control what people off your site do.

Forget link building, focus on your own house and you "should" rank just fine (from my personal experiences).

not going to happen for a full site in any competitive search results though mate

[-Shay-]

not going to happen for a full site in any competitive search results though mate

OK

Very interesting Shay.
Can you tell me for which of your sites are you using this technique ?
Take care

I have four money-making websites for which I do this.

[thebookiesoffers]

OK



I have four money-making websites for which I do this.

Could you share this sites and keywords? in private if you prefer (these would be 100% kept secret, I'd just verify)?

just to clarify are you saying you can get this sites to rank with no links ?

or you do no link building but have content that will pick up links?

[-Shay-]

Clarification:

I'm saying that I get my sites to rank without getting backlinks. I also do not place links from "within my network". I do not seek backlinks and in all fairness, my content is probably not "link worthy" to other affiliates. Well, it might be link-worthy, but it is unlikely to get links from competitors.

I simply develop content that is TRULY UNIQUE, extremely thorough and focused, interesting, well written. My content attempts to fully addresses the search queries for which it is intended.

The biggest problem that I see, which I've said before - is that most copywriters construct content that passes Copyscape, as this is the unfortunate benchmark for "delivering unique content".

On the other end of the equation, most webmasters either do not know how to ask a writer for truly "unique" content or they are hiring a writer who is incapable of delivering such content.

How many of us have our writers drafting content that probably should be composed from an "expert" point of view, but in reality - if you took a truly objective look at all of the areas they are writing in, they are really jacks of all trades and masters of none. As webmasters, how many of us do the same?

Most of us probably employ have a single writer who does the "how to make money online" articles, "choosing the best cloud server" content, provides dietary and fitness advice on "choosing the best supplements". That is the very same writer who also suggests the best, but cheapest five star hotels, and then reviews the "best poker sites" - right after providing expert betting tips on this weekends' football matches.

Rhetorically speaking, how can a single writer be experts on all of those areas - especially when each of those areas of focus are not simply one-and-done articles?

I'm not willing to give up my sites or keywords. I'm not saying take my word for it blindly either. If you're having trouble ranking, if you have a domain you're considering developing and "things" aren't working for you the way you're carrying on now, or if you are planning to target something you haven't gone after yet - try a different approach instead of doing more of what isn't working or what takes a bunch of links to compensate for an absence of quality.

[thebookiesoffers]

I'm not willing to give up my sites or keywords.

Not wanting to get into a argument and not calling you a bullshitter in anyway but without any proof to suggest otherwise I stand by what I say, especially in competitive search results.

Now, I fully agree that you should make your content as quality as you can and need to research on how to write that, not just bang a load of dribble out.

But on page and off page go hand in hand to me, unless I see anything different I will always say you need both, especially if you are trying to rank for anything slightly competitive

[-Shay-]

you need both, especially if you are trying to rank for anything slightly competitive

When talking about trying to rank for anything slightly competitive, are you talking about something broad like "poker" or something more focused like "poker bonus"?

(note: I've not looked at either term for competitive purposes - just throwing out examples)

If we're talking vanity terms like "poker", I do not believe for a second that I could build a site/page/whatever that could rank top 3 or page 1 for that exact term without "building" links. Something more focused, however, such as "poker bonus" - I believe it can be done without going out and building links.

You're also right in being skeptical, so even if you came out and called me a bullshitter, I'd not be offended. I still stick by my post and suggest folks try it if their current method is not working.

[-Shay-]

Also, to be fair - because I do not go out and "build" links or ask for links, I don't know if doing so would benefit my strategy.

What I do know is that I'm not hurting rolling the way I am, so if it ain't broke...

On the other hand, if it were broken, I would consider trying something different - not just more of the same.

[thebookiesoffers]

When talking about trying to rank for anything slightly competitive, are you talking about something broad like "poker" or something more focused like "poker bonus"?

(note: I've not looked at either term for competitive purposes - just throwing out examples)

If we're talking vanity terms like "poker", I do not believe for a second that I could build a site/page/whatever that could rank top 3 or page 1 for that exact term without "building" links. Something more focused, however, such as "poker bonus" - I believe it can be done without going out and building links.

You're also right in being skeptical, so even if you came out and called me a bullshitter, I'd not be offended. I still stick by my post and suggest folks try it if their current method is not working.

In terms of competiveness I'd say any phrase where you have 20-30 different sites after it that have done a half decent job of SEO

If only a couple of sites are chasing something and they have done a crap job at everything it would in theory be easy to top them by basic on site seo techniques including top quality content.

Doesn't really matter anyway as you say it works for you, my way works for me so happy days all round

[Hermski]

Hi Shay and thebookiesoffers

Thanks for your input! It turned into a vibrant discussion. Getting back to my actual question, as I mentioned, I was just looking for an indication. I am surely not the king of content myself, but I'm pretty sure I don't write nonsense nor do I intend to get pages out conveyor belt style. I am intending to add quality to the site, otherwise it wouldn't be satisfying maintaining it in the first place.

That aside and related to my initial question. I'm sure there's a lot of room for on-page otimisation, yet I still ranked 'alright' with some, as I deem, fairly competitive terms (don't forget, the main project is just over a year old and I consider myself new to this still). I admit, it must have been with the help of some backlinks too that got tanked in one or another way. You can imagine the outcome. Those rankings are no more. As my site is fairly (or too) diverse, which may have watered down the power on many keywords, I wondered, if a bunch of quality links would help stabilize a little (not intending to balance out bull**** content). There are lots of different factors in SEO and that is one I may have been missing out on big time. Hence my initial question, how many good backlinks do you believe could make a difference, given that your site is not a contextual disaster of course?

Anyways, great stuff with your projects Shay. Am happy to hear that you can stay clear from what I suppose 90% of us dealing with a lot, which is off page optimization.

Thanks again for your input.

[thebookiesoffers]

as for your original question it is really unanswerable as there are so many variables.

my only advice is don't do SEO by numbers, just concentrate on quality and you'll see the rewards

[lots0]

Hence my initial question, how many good backlinks do you believe could make a difference, given that your site is not a contextual disaster of course?

Just one.

[edgarf76]

@lots0 when you say just one do you have a certain page rank that you wouldnt go below. For instance if your site is about soccer, do you only look for a solid backlink on a page rank 5 site about soccer with a good alexa ranking? When you say one, do you mean one on the home page or sitewide? Are you taking social networks such as twitter backlinks into the formula?

[thebookiesoffers]

@lots0 when you say just one do you have a certain page rank that you wouldnt go below. For instance if your site is about soccer, do you only look for a solid backlink on a page rank 5 site about soccer with a good alexa ranking? When you say one, do you mean one on the home page or sitewide? Are you taking social networks such as twitter backlinks into the formula?

that is why the question is impossible to give a correct answer. 1 link could indeed make the difference, in the right circumstances, on the other hand you may need 100's to see any difference depending on what you are up against

SEO by numbers is long gone

[lots0]

@lots0 when you say just one do you have a certain page rank that you wouldnt go below. For instance if your site is about soccer, do you only look for a solid backlink on a page rank 5 site about soccer with a good alexa ranking? When you say one, do you mean one on the home page or sitewide? Are you taking social networks such as twitter backlinks into the formula?

1> One link from a "trusted" site(any indexed page) to any page on your site will "make a difference". How much of a difference is a question only google can answer and of course they won't.
But as just an 'observer', I see that links still matter, but the focus is on trusted sites(the ones that rank on page one for competitive queries - NOT the pages with high PageRank).
Usually you can't buy a link on a trusted site, at least out in the open. That is one of google's little trust things, if your domain has ever been known to buy or sell links for SEO, it has no "trust" from google, so a link from that domain will mean nothing or very little for SEO.

2> PageRank is dead, it has been dead so long the bones have turned into fossils.
The PR numbers that are shown to the public have almost nothing to do with how a site ranks for competitive queries.

Any time you hear someone talking about google's "PageRank" and they make it sound like PageRank is still a factor in ranking, you can be sure that person does not know **** about SEO.

The advice you have gotten here is the best "Free" advice your going to get, business pay 5 figures to learn this stuff.

SEO now a days is all about providing "a good user experience", that is unique or better than your competition, do that and google will send you all the traffic you can handle.

[edgarf76]

thank you @lots0. That was excellent and answered a lot of questions I have. Much Appreciated!

[anikkhl]

I think this can be the criteria

PR 2+
DA 40+

And no of links would depend on different factors like how fast you would like to grow? , what's compitition status of the keywords you have choosen etc.

For low competitive keywords 5-10 quality link / month would be great but you need to have a diverse set of keywords.

If you are focusing on only 1-2 keywords then you possible keyword spread can be as following

Click, here , there this kind of keywords: 20%
Directly your domain name like, yourdomainname.com: 20%
Your desired keyword 1: 40%
Your desired keyword 2: 20%

Thanks

[alexcruncha]

How many quality links do make a difference to a sites' SEO?

I have seen sites with 20 backlinks outrank sites with 1000+ backlinks... its all about the link quality. If you get 1 dofollow link from a site like Wikipedia for example then it will likely have more impact than 100 links from most run of the mill article directories, web directories, press release sites etc.