Links don't count for SERPs anymore.

[Reg-nbs-seo]

It's a night thought but until Google or someone they can buy out comes up with a level of artificial intelligence advanced enough to be able to comb through hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of competing pages related to the same search and determine which provide the best information, it ain't gonna happen. In fact, a human would have trouble doing this for even a small set of pages without extensive research unless they were familiar with the topic.

They do this now.
The Google system uses a form of LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing) to compare and evaluate not only the words on the page but the relationship of the words to one another.
This is one of the things that was done to the long tail in the Mayday update. Instead of allowing long tail searches to be ranked by exact match, as was done previously, the long tail searches were brought into the LSI type scoring.

The reason original search engines had indexes which were manually created by humans was because that was the best way to ensure quality. As the web grew that became far too limiting to be practical.

Keyword density based algorithms could comb through huge data sets but are easy to manipulate. That's why Google started using links as a major factor in ranking. The idea is that a link is a vote that a particular page is relevant enough to earn one. This allows links to act as a sort of human editing system. Now it's not perfect but it's just on in hundreds of factors modern search engines use.

The idea that a link is a vote worked until the SEOers figured out that search positions could be manipulated with links.

Google engineers quickly noticed this trend and continuous changes were made to the ranking algos. (From inception in '98 to June 2002, small tweaks were continually made to the ranking process with a minimum of 19 days and a maximum of 54 days between updates.
This has continued through the years and resulted in some major updates.
I have documented them in my "An incomplete history of the Google search engine from a SEOers viewpoint." article on nbs-seo

Real tests done by many authorities in the SEO and internet marketing arenas such as SEOMoz has shown that linking is still the biggest factor and that on-page factors are important but secondary.

Do you realize how out of date SEOMoz's articles on linking factors ARE?
They were published before Caffeine, Mayday and even before the removal of the PR tool from Google's webmaster tools.

Another factor in their keeping this myth going is because of all the software they sell for linking. They have 11 tools JUST for linking.
Lots of potential revenue loss.

Think that's crap? There are tons of examples of web pages that rank #1 for keywords that appear nowhere on them or on their site for that matter. So why are they #1? Because of anchor text in their off-site backlinks. If that's not proof that what the OP is saying is wrong then what is?

Please show me some m8?
Except for Google bombs, I have never seen this and I do literally thousands of searches every month.

The idea of "one link, one (weighted) vote" was a stroke of genius, at the time. I do not think Google anticipated the amount of link brokering and link manipulation that would result.
I imagine that fighting paid and non relevant links has cost them millions.

With both the Mayday and Caffeine updates Google moved away from having links influence search positions using a much more complicated (advanced) algo set which concentrated on the relevance between linked and linking pages.

They changed the algo for PR in Mayday and very few caught it when they replied to Vanessa Fox.

I asked Google for more specifics and they told me that it was a rankings change, not a crawling or indexing change, which seems to imply that sites getting less traffic still have their pages indexed, but some of those pages are no longer ranking as highly as before

Vanessa, bless her little Google heart, seems to have totally missed the point. (Or she is still being paid by Google to mislead the SEOers.)

She confuses rankings with indexing, 2 different things entirely.
Look at the words Google used in their reply.
rankings - crawling - indexing
rankings = PR - crawling = how often your pages are visited by the googlebot and indexing = the position in the serps.

The Mayday algo change affected the way PR is calculated.
It would not affect the way your site was crawled (The upcoming Caffeine update was going to do that).
It would not affect your indexing in the SERPs even if you lost PR.
(I had one

If links and PR had an effect on SERPS, they could not say a PR algo change would not affect your indexed positions in search results, as they most definitely would.
(Unless they are lying to us).(

best
Reg

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

Right on m8 right on.
I have bolded what I feel are your salient points and replied in a contrasting color.

interesting thread!

not necessarily because of the OP's post, but because of so much "dogma" around SEO "truths"

So here's a possibility, not saying I agree with the OP (yet) but a possibility:

while I wasn't doing SEO back in the late 90s when google started out, I can imagine back then there were a few thread just like this one, but where the situation was reversed - one person saying "it's all about off-page" and 50 people bashing them because "it just wasn't - everyone knows that".
It was exactly like that. Everybody resists change. Lots are quick to call someone else an asshole because they disagree with industry "dogma".

Around the time Google appeared on the scene I was doing cloaking for 12 search engines, configuring non-public, all text pages for each of the search engines and sending the public to the real page.
This was so effective that I was selling SEO by position and contracts ran from $3000 to over $5k

think about it this way: google knows that they came "to be" pretty much because the yahoo's and altavista's of the world were crammed with keyword jamming. They did something different that worked - (exactly..they developed a search engine that used both on page content and the amount and quality of links point to the page) but mostly because the other search engine's results kept kicking up crap pages loaded with crap keyword jamming just to click on someone's crappy ad because of people like us (but wearing late 90s fashion).

Now the situations are reversed - the web is polluted with crap pages, crap comments, and crap content that exist just "make a backlink" to some other crappy website that exists just to have someone click on an ad.

And Google know this.
Their PR concept went to hell in a handbasket.
How many different linking factors are there which defeat the concept of organic and relevant linking?

• Reciprocal linking to off topic sites (Friends - interesting stuff - MLM - etc)
• Link Farms
• Paid linking
• 3 way - 4 way linking programs
• Google bombing
• Unsafe linking.
  
• *ANY linking scheme which does not consider relevance.

I'm not trying to knock it here - I make just as much of that crap as the next guy - but honestly, when you're doing your own searches and you put in "4 slice toaster" who really wants to have that result come up each and every time? (I'm not knocking the 4 slice toaster site here, in it's time that was a true beacon of hope that crappy pages truly could be SEO'd)
The search brings up great results for me.
Paid search shows 2 Canadian sites and one 5 star US one.

Organic search shows me a row of shopping results with pictures and prices and under that reviews by brand and then Amazon before the page cuts off. Looks like a great result to me. What would you want better?

Imagine if someone, somewhere, came out with a "better way" to run a search engine that didn't rely on all the off page flotsam that's amassed on the web - and came up with good clear results not full of all our crap - google would be bankrupt within a year, and they know it.

Google just did it based on relevance.

So - in google's eyes - why not just beat the potential competitors to the punch? Focus back to on-page while everyone's focused on building as much off-page crap as they can.
That is what they did.
The Google algos are so much more advanced than Bing. Results are far superior.
If I get .01% traffic from it I am surprised.

Worst case, you end up with the same results as Bing, but from their perspective, who cares? nobody's going to go there anyways as long as the results are about the same.

Is it happening? maybe. I (personally) think that data's been showing me that on-page has gone back up in importance in the last 12 months,
I can link you to articles going back a few years which are about links not affecting position.
maybe more so on the mid-to-longer-tail searches, and not necessarily as far as the OP is claiming, but something I'd absolutely love to see hard data on.

Hard data can be found in any search.
Once you have your results, check the amount of PR and links (Using Yahoo for Linking metrics) on each of the top sites.
I have often found low PR sites out ranking their higher cousins.
I documented my 1 link beating 277,000 links site SEO efforts.

In the meantime, always be testing......

Right on.
best
Reg

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

PR doesn't mean shit! As a veteran you should know that. And, links don't influence PR at all. I have a PR3 site with only 7 links..how bout that!?

Josh, where are you getting your link stats?

What do you think governs PR?

 

[Yukinari84]

I won't come in here and trash the OP because I think he has already done enough damage to himself just by posting this thread in the manner that he/she did.

For anyone to come out and make claims about Google as if they are a fact is a warning flag in itself IMHO.

Google has always been and always will be vague about how they rank and score pages. That is how they keep their competitive edge over all the other search engines.

There are so many debates about what works and what is dead, but they all span from personal experience. The only real way to know for yourself what is working and what isn't is to test things and track your results.

If the OP wants to and can rank his sites without link building, then more power to him/her. However, that does not mean that links don't count anymore.

If they didn't then Adobe Acrobat Reader's download page would not still be #1 after all this time for the term "click here".

I have a different view on SEO than most people. For me, SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is about exactly what the name implies - optimizing my sites for their chosen KWs via on-site SEO.

Everything else is what I refer to as SEP (Search Engine Promotion), and link building is part of that.

Just like all the other debates regarding Google and their ranking algorithm, this thread cannot be presented as a fact. The OP brought up a topic for discussion, and that is how it should be treated.

Like I said earlier, the only way to figure out what is working for you and your business is to test and track.

 

[shadowbox]

Is this thread really still happening?

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

Christ, where to start...

First off, Google thinking of no longer making PR publicly visible has nothing to do with the notion that links no longer matter. It has to do with the fact that Google doesn't want people to focus on PR (as they have said) and that they are not very accurate as the public info can be months old.

Not true.
When Google remove the PR tool bar they also said
"We've been telling people for a long time that they shouldn't focus on PageRank so much; many site owners seem to think it's the most important metric for them to track, which is simply not true. We removed it because we felt it was silly to tell people not to think about it, but then to show them the data, implying that they should look at it. "

Remember they are talking to developers here, not the general run of the public using the browser PR display.
In effect, removing the tool form the SEO tools told the developers "Links (PR) don't count for SEO purposes".
Leaving it in the Google Browser toolbar said they still considered a worthwhile metric for judging the "Authority" of a website.

However, authority does not not affect relevance anymore.
There can be high authority sites in one discipline posting links to a irrelevant website. (Get links on high PR sites for the best results was a longtime cry. Relevance was not considered in the PR math.)

Search engines used to not factor in linking. This lead to lots of abuse with people trying to optimize pages to rank for anything and everything they could. Google based it's original ranking algorithm on the fact that linking was a better way to determine relevancy and popularity.

Yes. The ORIGINAL algo was based like this.
I already said that a few times.
They changed it.

Your anecdotal "evidence" means nothing, it's not even good anecdotal evidence. You fail to take into account the fact that the number of total links DOES NOT MATTER. It's the quality and relevance of a link that determines weather or not it helps a particular page rank for a particular keyword and to what degree.

Holy crap dude!! How many of the 277,000 links that a SEO company got would you think did not count.
Your concept of how PR WAS ranked is wrong.
Linked pages in the old PR were ranked based on how much PR the linking page had, modified by the amount of links on the page.

In the new PR this has been replaced with the assigned PR being based on the relevance between linking and linked pages. 113 Links on PR0 pages, 1 PR5 and 1 PR3 link got me PR4

Google has even shown in talks examples of web sites that had thousands of backlinks and how only 2-3 were even being considered as ranking factors for those examples.

Could you point me to the examples please?

Having a bunch of crap links, non-related links, links on low PR or non authority pages, etc are worth very little. You can have a hundred thousand of those to a PR5 page and still have it beaten in the SERPS by a PR2 with 1000 links. Why? Because the second page could have links from higher quality pages that are much more related to it's topic.

[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, but if you examine the links in my 277,000 to 1 example you will find that searchengineworld's links are high quality, as one would expect.

best
Reg

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

I won't come in here and trash the OP because I think he has already done enough damage to himself just by posting this thread in the manner that he/she did.

For anyone to come out and make claims about Google as if they are a fact is a warning flag in itself IMHO.

Actually I am reporting what my EVIDENCE has shown.

Google has always been and always will be vague about how they rank and score pages. That is how they keep their competitive edge over all the other search engines.
There are so many debates about what works and what is dead, but they all span from personal experience. The only real way to know for yourself what is working and what isn't is to test things and track your results.

Couldn't be truer.

If the OP wants to and can rank his sites without link building, then more power to him/her. However, that does not mean that links don't count anymore.

If they didn't then Adobe Acrobat Reader's download page would not still be #1 after all this time for the term "click here".

I

have a different view on SEO than most people. For me, SEO (Search Engine Optimization) is about exactly what the name implies - optimizing my sites for their chosen KWs via on-site SEO.

Everything else is what I refer to as SEP (Search Engine Promotion), and link building is part of that.

So you are saying the same thing I am.
You do not include link building in SEO but use it for marketing.

Just like all the other debates regarding Google and their ranking algorithm, this thread cannot be presented as a fact. The OP brought up a topic for discussion, and that is how it should be treated.

Exactly. However given a large enough sampling with indepth analysis combined with what Google has patented, the effects and analysis of their major updates, the snippets of information they release, and one can build a very good idea of what is being done to rank pages.

Like I said earlier, the only way to figure out what is working for you and your business is to test and track.

Testing and tracking has shown me that Google does not use links to influence SERPs anymore.

 

[pixelgrinder]

Reg - you keep referring to this site that you've beat with 277k links and have YET to tell us if even one of those links has anchor text for your keyword. The fact is - that site is most likely ranking without even trying based on the title or content on the page.

Im not sure how many times it has to be said ANCHOR TEXT IS KEY

 

[pixelgrinder]

I also just checked the stats for your site, you're averaging 167 visitors A MONTH. Not trying to be rude but if you were as good as you say you are wouldn't you be averaging more? Just saying.

 

[shuval]

I don't think google even existence 15 years

 

[Yukinari84]

Actually I am reporting what my EVIDENCE has shown....

Exactly my point. That is your experience.

My experience as well as many others shows that backlinks play a big role in ranking your sites and pages in Google.

So you are saying the same thing I am.
You do not include link building in SEO but use it for marketing.

Yes and no. I just pointed out that I classify SEO and promoting websites as 2 different things. This keeps things simplified and makes things much more effective for me.

Testing and tracking has shown me that Google does not use links to influence SERPs anymore.

Again, that's great if you are getting results with your own testing and methods. However, from my testing and tracking, backlinks always have and still do influence rankings and until the day I see otherwise, I will happily continue link spamming. ;p

 

[┼blackrat┼]

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

I also just checked the stats for your site, you're averaging 167 visitors A MONTH. Not trying to be rude but if you were as good as you say you are wouldn't you be averaging more? Just saying.

Sorry mate, but your stats are wrong.

In August I had 712 visits and served 5773 pages.
In Sept 652 visits and 5098 pages.

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

Reg - you keep referring to this site that you've beat with 277k links and have YET to tell us if even one of those links has anchor text for your keyword. The fact is - that site is most likely ranking without even trying based on the title or content on the page.

Im not sure how many times it has to be said ANCHOR TEXT IS KEY

LOL BIG PINK TEXT DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT.

IF anchor text is THE KEY, how do you explain away that there is NO difference between posting anchor text links for promotional reasons and posting anchor text links for a Google Bomb.

Do you not understand that Google is dead set against using ANY means of manipulating the search results other than relevance, and using links falls into that category?

Do you not understand that an anchor text link does not improve or contribue to the relevance of the topic?
It is the same as a meta tag, providing information about the page it links to.

Do you really think that ONLY anchor text links with the same text as the intended phrase count?

Do you not understand the implications of the Mayday update?

How do you dismiss the fact that Google told us to not bother about links?

How can you look at the TONS of evidence supporting the fact that links are irrelevant?

 

[MaxTucker]

What I was thinking as I read through this shitty thread.....

Hmmm interesting.
-----
'Reg-nbs-seo' might have a point, I should keep reading.
-----
This 'Reg-nbs-seo' guy sound like a bit of a prick and he is a little full of himself.
-----
God 'Reg-nbs-seo' talks a lot of crap. Can he hurry up and get to the point.
-----
These other guys all make good valid points. At least what they say makes sense.
-----
Oh god no. I am not going to read another of ''Reg-nbs-seo'' long winded posts. I cant bear to read this nonsensical drivel. But..... it is like a train wreck I just can't look away.
-----
Oh ffs he is talking about how amazing he is again! Next he will bring up some gibberish he claims is empirical evidence of linking being obsolete.
-----
People this idiotic should not be allowed to breed.
-----
I promise myself I will never read this thread again.

 

[Yukinari84]

LOL BIG PINK TEXT DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT.

IF anchor text is THE KEY, how do you explain away that there is NO difference between posting anchor text links for promotional reasons and posting anchor text links for a Google Bomb.

Do you not understand that Google is dead set against using ANY means of manipulating the search results other than relevance, and using links falls into that category?

Do you not understand that an anchor text link does not improve or contribue to the relevance of the topic?
It is the same as a meta tag, providing information about the page it links to.

Do you really think that ONLY anchor text links with the same text as the intended phrase count?

Do you not understand the implications of the Mayday update?

How do you dismiss the fact that Google told us to not bother about links?

How can you look at the TONS of evidence supporting the fact that links are irrelevant?

While big pink text does not make someone right, nothing you have posted makes you correct either.

1. Google has always been against anyone trying to manipulate their search result, but that has not stopped anyone from doing it. It's done all day everyday by me and countless others.

2. Anchor text links can provide some relevancy, especially if they are pages relevant to the content that you are linking to.

3. Using only the same anchor text is another debate within itself. I personally change it up every now and then, and I get great results.

4. The mayday update has not had very much effect at all on any of my sites, and I think it's pretty much the same for anyone that has good sites with a strong, consistent backlink strategy. The worst that happened was a few of my feeder sites dropped a few places for long-tailed phrases. Nothing to worry about.

5. Google tells us not to do many things, but I have found that not following what they say exactly has proven time and time again to be profitable.

6. You ask how others can overlook the "facts" that links are irrelevant, but you are doing the exact same thing and overlooking the over whelming evidence that links are relevant. Again, re-visit the Adobe example I laid out earlier.

This thread is nothing more than a debate about opinions and is nothing for anyone to get alarmed about. If you're getting good results with what you are doing, then keep doing it and expanding upon it, but don't pass it off as 100% facts to everyone when it is obviously not.

This goes for the everyone, not just the OP.

 

[peixe01]

haha MaxTucker, good one

 

[Reg-nbs-seo]

 

[theconfidenceman]

Links do count but per google -- the links should be earned -- which would discount
a shitload of links, which I am sure they have built into their algo to determine. For example links dropped in comment boxes on high spammed sites tells G it was not earned but more likely an unmoderated autoapprove blog. links from unmoderated directories have very little weight as well -- yet the moderated and manual review and approval directory DMOZ carries significant weight.

For this reason, the links that appear to be earned -- articles, contextual blog posts, relevant themed sites and links that appear to be within content carry the most weight. And links on high PR sites, imply an earned link as most are moderated and updated often.

my 2 cents

 

[troybh]

I have done a lot of link building and spend a lot of money on link building with absolutely no results. (linkwheels, xrummer, forum posts, crappy ezines). Is the OP right. Who knows. For me as an uneducated blackhatter I find the best thing to do is to make a site, continue adding to the site with good quality content and google will incrementally reward you. Seems good to me and fair. I would hate for some crappy site to post a bunch of crap and outrank me just because they are spamming. Keep up the good work google.