Role Of Backlinks in 2014 SEO

[wettFORM.AT]

when I look at the current search results for specific keywords I am sure that links are still a very important factor. I can see pages with no content, wrong spelling, not any useful information on positions on the first page. Of course these rankings are not for a long period but these websites are ranked and it seems that the ranking factor here is backlinks. On the other hand I see websites that look "ok" but they are not very useful and helpful but they are ranked much higher than some other pages with very good content. So it seems that not the quality on the page is the nr.1

[muffincrumbs]

Yes but like you said, it doesn't last long. The formula for ranking still uses the back link though just like you said, but other things like "signals" tend to make a site stay. Quality plays a role in that your visitors will like the experience, talk about it and others will link to it, building a natural profile. Velocity of new links is prob the most over looked factor in my humble opinion. The rate at which natural links are acquired. Prob is there are few of these in the online gambling niche. I can promise you one thing... This is what G loves the most, keeping you guessing.

[wettFORM.AT]

sure social signals and many other factors are important as well. I just wanted to say that some rankings (not only short-term) are not very logical in terms of what we currently know about their guidelines or what they communicate. They always talk about quality but for some keywords the quality is clear missing. Instead of quality they list websites without any value to the reader. The conclusion for me is that these sites have an big link profile because all other ranking factors we know are simply not here. Many of these pages stay in the rankings for a long time.

[josh01]

For all those who don't believe backlinks are important - can you show me a site in a competitive industry that ranks for a money term without having quality backlinks?

[iGamingWriter]

There seems to be a tone of one or the other going through a lot of the posts here and I'm not convinced either's right. To me it seems that backlinks will always be required to one degree or another, but obviously google will endeavour to find other ranking factors to devalue links - links are too easily gamed for them not to. I think that a webmaster that relies entirely on links is likely not to succeed (or experience short terms success) and likewise a webmaster that doesn't generate any links (natural or otherwise) and focuses solely on onsite SEO will struggle. The truth - as with most things in life - is somewhere in between.

[jaysh4922]

Back links are more important of website ranking in search engines. Back links are nothing but reference given to your website by other websites. If you get more back links than your competitors than your website will be in front page of the search engines.

Back link are more vital of site standing in web indexing tools. Back links are just reference given to your web space by different resources. In the event that you get more back link than your contestants than your resource could be in front page of the online searching tools.

[T-Bone]

For all those who don't believe backlinks are important - can you show me a site in a competitive industry that ranks for a money term without having quality backlinks?

What he said!

[mobilcasino]

Great article.

No doubt that backlinks will be just as important as before, but the future is more about getting relative backlinks.
No more the shady bought links (thank god!).