What is better? ZERO backlinks or 1000 spammy backlinks?

This is a false choice, and it's worth explaining why because it's exactly where most people go wrong.

Zero versus 1000 spammy links pointed straight at a brand new domain, then yes, zero wins every time and nobody should argue otherwise. But that isn't the choice anyone experienced is actually making. The real choice is where those 1000 links point.

Point them at your money site and you have a problem. Point them at a buffer layer instead, web 2.0 properties or a few cheap domains with real content on them, and those same links do their job without touching anything you care about. The buffer absorbs the risk and passes up what survives. That's the whole logic, and it hasn't changed in ten years.

The Fiverr package is bad for a separate reason anyway. You don't know the targets, you can't control the anchors, and you can't stop it once it runs. Bad links aren't really the issue. Bad links you can't point or control are.

If someone is new and can't manage a buffer layer yet, then fine, zero is the right answer for them right now. Just know that's a temporary answer, not a rule.

I’d take zero backlinks over 1,000 spammy ones any day I’d rather build a few relevant quality links slowly than risk the site with junk

zero, if those are honestly the only two choices. but nobody should be buying a random fiverr package in 2026 when you can build the same volume yourself for less and actually pick where it lands. the link count was never the problem with those

Zero backlinks, easily. I’d rather start with no links and build a few relevant, quality backlinks naturally than point 1,000 random spammy links at a new domain. Quality and relevance matter far more than the raw number.