Why Are Backlinks Important in SEO?

I

GoogleWontRankUs said:

Sitting here acting like links are as important today as they were 5 years ago is not paying attention to the current reality and just coming here to parrot out 'create quality content' and 'get quality links' which isn't helping anyone

Click to expand...

Just read my posts. I am very sure backlinks are not part of the algo at all. Backlinks are just pointers to get traffic. They are not part of the algo.
I have an outstanding reward of 1000$ for proof of backlinks are part of the algo. Nobody has claimed it.
Im really hoping to get rid of the 1000$ as i am already ruling every niche i touch without buying backlinks, so with a working backlink strategie the whole internet will be a one man show!
But this wont happen as backlink selling is just a scam promoted by sellers who do everything to stay their pre 2012 money machines alive.

The real world and the internet work in similar ways. Do you trust a "stranger" or someone referred to you by a friend? This is called a reference. Your level of trust in that person will increase or decrease based on what your friend tells you about them — those are like keywords. So, if in the real world you can’t judge someone without prior information, how can a search engine do it? I hope you now understand what I’m trying to say — it’s similar to the algorithm of the human mind.

vinayseo said:

Because real world and internet works that way. Do you trust the "stranger" or "the person" refer by someone in your friend circle? This is called reference. Also your trust level will increase or decrease whatever your friend will tell your about that third person. Those are keywords. So in real world if you can't position someone without knowing how you can say search engine will do? Hope you got the idea what exactly I am telling. It is the algorithm of human mind.

Click to expand...

Would you trust in real world somebody because of a recommandation when you know 95% of the recommandations are fake?
So why would Google? Or dont you think they know?
You will answer about good and toxic and Google has systems to differntiate (and all the other BS invented by linkselling scammers). But in real world, would you mind making such detection systems when you have lots of other ways to determine if somebody is trustworthy? So why would Google?

Frederik Michiel said:

I

Just read my posts. I am very sure backlinks are not part of the algo at all. Backlinks are just pointers to get traffic. They are not part of the algo.
I have an outstanding reward of 1000$ for proof of backlinks are part of the algo. Nobody has claimed it.
Im really hoping to get rid of the 1000$ as i am already ruling every niche i touch without buying backlinks, so with a working backlink strategie the whole internet will be a one man show!
But this wont happen as backlink selling is just a scam promoted by sellers who do everything to stay their pre 2012 money machines alive.

Click to expand...

Pretty much fully in agreement, buying links has been a scam for awhile, you can get the same ones off fiver for half the price or less what the 'good link sellers' sell them for, and they are all obv guest post farms

There was a time and a place when links mattered, that was last decade though

This industry is dead, more people need to admit it, but the sellers keep saying those happy positive vibes and it tricks the noobs (only reason I signed up for an account)

Frederik Michiel said:

Would you trust in real world somebody because of a recommandation when you know 95% of the recommandations are fake?
So why would Google? Or dont you think they know?
You will answer about good and toxic and Google has systems to differntiate (and all the other BS invented by linkselling scammers). But in real world, would you mind making such detection systems when you have lots of other ways to determine if somebody is trustworthy? So why would Google?

Click to expand...

You’re absolutely right that not all recommendations are trustworthy — both in real life and online. Fake reviews, bought links, and manipulated trust signals are a real problem.

But even in real life, we still use recommendations — we just become better at filtering them. We start valuing who is recommending, how relevant their opinion is, and whether it's consistent with other signals. That’s exactly what Google tries to do.

Google doesn’t blindly trust every link or mention. It has complex systems (yes, real ones — not link seller marketing fluff) to evaluate:

• Source credibility (Is the site known for expertise?)
• Relevance (Is the link naturally placed in a related context?)
• Consistency (Is the site trusted across other signals — content, engagement, etc.?)

Just like in the real world, we don’t stop trusting all recommendations because of a few bad ones. We refine how we judge them. The same logic applies to Google.

So no, links alone aren’t enough — but to ignore them completely would be like ignoring someone’s reputation in real life. That wouldn’t make sense either. Hope you got my point.

vinayseo said:

You’re absolutely right that not all recommendations are trustworthy — both in real life and online. Fake reviews, bought links, and manipulated trust signals are a real problem.

But even in real life, we still use recommendations — we just become better at filtering them. We start valuing who is recommending, how relevant their opinion is, and whether it's consistent with other signals. That’s exactly what Google tries to do.

Google doesn’t blindly trust every link or mention. It has complex systems (yes, real ones — not link seller marketing fluff) to evaluate:

• Source credibility (Is the site known for expertise?)
• Relevance (Is the link naturally placed in a related context?)
• Consistency (Is the site trusted across other signals — content, engagement, etc.?)

Just like in the real world, we don’t stop trusting all recommendations because of a few bad ones. We refine how we judge them. The same logic applies to Google.

So no, links alone aren’t enough — but to ignore them completely would be like ignoring someone’s reputation in real life. That wouldn’t make sense either. Hope you got my point.

Click to expand...

Few bad ones? like 95%
Its not about ignoring someones reputation, its about having better methods than recommandation!

Frederik Michiel said:

Few bad ones? like 95%
Its not about ignoring someones reputation, its about having better methods than recommandation!

Click to expand...

You’re focused on the “95% fake” number — but that’s precisely why Google doesn’t rely only on recommendations (links). It uses them in combination with dozens of other signals: content quality, user behavior, authority, topical relevance, E-E-A-T, and more.

And as for “better methods than recommendations” — Google already uses them. But links (when earned, not bought) are still one of the few scalable and decentralized trust signals on the web.

If someone is mentioned across trusted, niche-relevant sites — that’s a lot like a real-world reputation built across industry word of mouth. You don’t throw that out — you filter it smartly. Which is exactly what Google does.

So no, it’s not “just recommendations.” It’s reputation + context + intent — just like real life, only scaled with machine learning.

vinayseo said:

But links (when earned, not bought) are still one of the few scalable and decentralized trust signals on the web.

Click to expand...

They are, i dont deny that, but Google doesnt use them because they dont have to. There are far easyer and more relaiable methods (you mentioned some already yourself)
Im already very sure Google doesn't use them. But when you are sure backlinks are part of the algo, why dont you proof it? There is a 1000$ waiting for you.

Frederik Michiel said:

They are, i dont deny that, but Google doesnt use them because they dont have to. There are far easyer and more relaiable methods (you mentioned some already yourself)
Im already very sure Google doesn't use them. But when you are sure backlinks are part of the algo, why dont you proof it? There is a 1000$ waiting for you.

Click to expand...

I get the skepticism — but let’s stay real: claiming “Google doesn’t use backlinks anymore” is a pretty bold statement, especially when:

• Google’s own documentation (Search Central, Quality Rater Guidelines) consistently references links and link quality.
• John Mueller(I know every SEO hates him) and other Googlers have repeatedly said that while links aren’t everything, they are still used — just not in isolation.
• Every major SEO test, from platforms like Ahrefs, Moz, and others, still shows strong correlation between quality backlinks and rankings.

So if you're saying Google completely ignores backlinks — the burden of proof is actually on you to show when and where Google officially said they're obsolete.

As for your $1000 challenge — that's cute. But we both know SEO isn’t a courtroom where you “prove” an algorithm. It’s about pattern recognition, case studies, and testing at scale — all of which still confirm that links matter, even if less than they did a decade ago.

Bottom line? Google doesn’t rely only on backlinks, but it also doesn’t throw them away. Like everything else in SEO, it’s about balance, quality, and context.

Saying “I’m sure” without evidence and demanding proof from others isn’t a debate.

vinayseo said:

I get the skepticism — but let’s stay real: claiming “Google doesn’t use backlinks anymore” is a pretty bold statement, especially when:

• Google’s own documentation (Search Central, Quality Rater Guidelines) consistently references links and link quality.
• John Mueller(I know every SEO hates him) and other Googlers have repeatedly said that while links aren’t everything, they are still used — just not in isolation.
• Every major SEO test, from platforms like Ahrefs, Moz, and others, still shows strong correlation between quality backlinks and rankings.

So if you're saying Google completely ignores backlinks — the burden of proof is actually on you to show when and where Google officially said they're obsolete.

As for your $1000 challenge — that's cute. But we both know SEO isn’t a courtroom where you “prove” an algorithm. It’s about pattern recognition, case studies, and testing at scale — all of which still confirm that links matter, even if less than they did a decade ago.

Bottom line? Google doesn’t rely only on backlinks, but it also doesn’t throw them away. Like everything else in SEO, it’s about balance, quality, and context.

Saying “I’m sure” without evidence and demanding proof from others isn’t a debate.

Click to expand...

-Google's own documentation is internaly inconsistent.
-John Mueller is a known liar.
-Ofcourse there is a correlation. But correlation is not the some as causal relation. I eat a chocalatebar and work on my website. My rankings improve. Must have been the chocolatebar, dont you think. The bias is caused by the fact that people who buy backlinks tend to work on their website otherwise also.
Another correlation has the opposite causal relation. High traffic websites get more backlinks. Very understandable.

Maybe its interesting for you to read my other posts. If have already said something about every statement you make.

About proof: This is not a debate. There is theorie out there about proof. Please read. Maybe an example makes it clear. Its not possible to proof black swans dont exist. When you state they do, you have to proof it. The same with backlinks being part of the algo.

The debate should be really about the question why it makes sense for Google to be involved in the cat and mouse game about good and bad links etc. You havent made one single argument i haven't refuted within seconds.

I have also seen you show really big interest in buying backlinks. Must be hard to land the truth. But better late then never. Wake up and save your money!

Frederik Michiel said:

-Google's own documentation is internaly inconsistent.
-John Mueller is a known liar.
-Ofcourse there is a correlation. But correlation is not the some as causal relation. I eat a chocalatebar and work on my website. My rankings improve. Must have been the chocolatebar, dont you think. The bias is caused by the fact that people who buy backlinks tend to work on their website otherwise also.
Another correlation has the opposite causal relation. High traffic websites get more backlinks. Very understandable.

Maybe its interesting for you to read my other posts. If have already said something about every statement you make.

About proof: This is not a debate. There is theorie out there about proof. Please read. Maybe an example makes it clear. Its not possible to proof black swans dont exist. When you state they do, you have to proof it. The same with backlinks being part of the algo.

The debate should be really about the question why it makes sense for Google to be involved in the cat and mouse game about good and bad links etc. You havent made one single argument i haven't refuted within seconds.

I have also seen you show really big interest in buying backlinks. Must be hard to land the truth. But better late then never. Wake up and save your money!

Click to expand...

I appreciate your passion — seriously — but you’re mixing healthy skepticism with conspiracy-theory-level cynicism. Let’s separate noise from signal.

1. “Google's documentation is internally inconsistent.”
   Sure — welcome to large corporations. That’s not evidence that it’s all false. If you want to dismiss official documentation and ignore statements from Google’s engineers and the results of actual SEO testing… what do you trust? Gut feeling?
2. “John Mueller is a known liar.”
   Or — and hear me out — he’s someone whose job is to be intentionally vague to prevent people from gaming the system. That’s not lying, that’s literally strategic ambiguity — just like any company that protects its algorithm.
3. “Correlation isn’t causation.”
   Correct. But when hundreds of independent SEO case studies over years observe improved rankings tied to quality backlinks with other variables controlled — it’s not just coincidence. That’s a pattern. Cherry-picking one example of causation confusion (your chocolate bar) doesn’t dismantle that.
4. “High traffic sites get more backlinks.”
   That’s not even a counterpoint. It supports my argument. Google sees links as signals of authority, whether earned passively or actively. Why? Because that’s how reputation works — the more people refer to something, the more trustworthy it likely is.
5. Your $1000 challenge & burden of proof claim
   You're shifting the burden of proof while ignoring existing proof. Nobody can show the exact algorithm — but Google’s own patents, whitepapers, and consistent behavior over 20+ years all point to backlinks being a measurable ranking factor — not the only one, but still a core one. There is Google patent which discusses link-based ranking. You can read it. That’s not a blog post. That’s legal documentation.

Finally — you said “must be hard to land the truth.” But the truth isn’t hiding. It’s just not black and white. Links aren’t magic, and they’re not dead. They’re one layer in a very complex cake.

You're not refuting points — you're just declaring them invalid without counter-evidence. That’s not critical thinking. That’s just being loud.

vinayseo said:

There is Google patent which discusses link-based ranking. You can read it. That’s not a blog post. That’s legal documentation.

Click to expand...

You dont have to use your own old patents. Pagerank was outdated in 2012!

vinayseo said:

But when hundreds of independent SEO case studies over years observe improved rankings tied to quality backlinks with other variables controlled

Click to expand...

Please show them. I think its hard. In reply i will show you lots of case studies where the same results are measured without bought backlinks.


And what about the debate im challenging you into?
Maybe the relation with real life again: You have access to information about someone being involved in court cases, have insights in someones relations over the years, someones bankaccount over the years, eductation, jobs, family situation etc. etc. Then you make a difficult algo to differentiate between good and 95% fake-recommandations to make the outcome part of another algo to measure someones trustworthiness? Sounds a little stupid, dont you think? So why would Google do the same with backlinks?

When you cant answer this beyond: 'everybody says so', maybe thats a sign the whole preeminence doesn't make sense.

And something else. In one of your posts last year you mention to have a job and dont want to. But when you know how SEO works with buying backlinks why dont you have a (or more) website that makes you a lot of money? Isnt the proof in the pudding?

Backlinks from genuine, niche relevant sources and right placements (Not comment links or Fiverr cheap gigs). They act like a fuel to your website's engine.

Backlinks are important because OffPage SEO Matters lot, as long as SEO is concern, getting links, mention across other platform, outside your platform is highly welcome

Imagine when people recommend your services. Now imagne when a trust personality recommend your services or products. That is what backlink does to your website when a trusted high quality platform mentioned you with a link votes.

Frederik Michiel said:

You dont have to use your own old patents. Pagerank was outdated in 2012!

Please show them. I think its hard. In reply i will show you lots of case studies where the same results are measured without bought backlinks.


And what about the debate im challenging you into?
Maybe the relation with real life again: You have access to information about someone being involved in court cases, have insights in someones relations over the years, someones bankaccount over the years, eductation, jobs, family situation etc. etc. Then you make a difficult algo to differentiate between good and 95% fake-recommandations to make the outcome part of another algo to measure someones trustworthiness? Sounds a little stupid, dont you think? So why would Google do the same with backlinks?

When you cant answer this beyond: 'everybody says so', maybe thats a sign the whole preeminence doesn't make sense.

And something else. In one of your posts last year you mention to have a job and dont want to. But when you know how SEO works with buying backlinks why dont you have a (or more) website that makes you a lot of money? Isnt the proof in the pudding?

Click to expand...

Frederik Michiel said:

You dont have to use your own old patents. Pagerank was outdated in 2012!

Please show them. I think its hard. In reply i will show you lots of case studies where the same results are measured without bought backlinks.


And what about the debate im challenging you into?
Maybe the relation with real life again: You have access to information about someone being involved in court cases, have insights in someones relations over the years, someones bankaccount over the years, eductation, jobs, family situation etc. etc. Then you make a difficult algo to differentiate between good and 95% fake-recommandations to make the outcome part of another algo to measure someones trustworthiness? Sounds a little stupid, dont you think? So why would Google do the same with backlinks?

When you cant answer this beyond: 'everybody says so', maybe thats a sign the whole preeminence doesn't make sense.

And something else. In one of your posts last year you mention to have a job and dont want to. But when you know how SEO works with buying backlinks why dont you have a (or more) website that makes you a lot of money? Isnt the proof in the pudding?

Click to expand...

Hey, I get where you're coming from — you’re asking why Google would still use backlinks when there are "smarter" ways to judge a site. You also said PageRank is outdated since 2012 and challenged me to prove it’s still being used.

So let’s just simplify it further with just facts.

Is Google Still Using PageRank?​

Yes — even in 2024.
The old visible PageRank score (the one shown in browser toolbars) was shut down in 2012 or 2016 I don't know exactly. But the PageRank algorithm itself — the one that checks how many and which websites link to a page — is still part of how Google ranks websites.

Here’s how we know:

• You said Pagerank is outdated 2012 but In 2017, Google’s Gary Illyes confirmed: “Yes, we still use PageRank internally.” Check here it's post
  https://twitter.com/x/status/829755916895535104
• In 2024, Google’s own product manager (Elizabeth Tucker) referred to PageRank as one of the “classic signals” they still use. You can read her interview here https://www.hulkapps.com/blogs/ecom...search-quality-insights-from-elizabeth-tucker
• Google still updates systems like SpamBrain and Penguin to fight spammy backlinks. If backlinks didn’t matter, why would they care?
• Also it may sound little stupid to you but in 2019 Google introduces the rel=”ugc” and rel=”sponsored” link attributes to understand how people link. If they don't care about links sure it is a stupid idea to bifurcate them in Good, Bad.
• Google also updating time to time it's link spam update to improve quality of the search results. If the links are not important then Google is really stupid updating it's core algorithm to fight with link spam. They can just demote all the sites with links right?

So no, PageRank isn’t dead — it just got smarter and more hidden from the public.

Also Google doesn’t have access to everything.

Think about it:

• Google can’t see your team.
• Google doesn’t know your goals.
• Google doesn’t know if your product actually works.

But it can see how other websites talk about you, link to you, or refer you.
And in the online world, backlinks are like votes or recommendations. They don’t tell the whole story, but they give a strong hint.

Google doesn’t use just backlinks — it uses hundreds of signals. But backlinks are one of the few public, scalable, and trackable signals of authority on the open web. That’s why Google still uses them, even if spammy ones are filtered out.
You can ranked without backlinks I don't deny it but just denying backlinks not work it's your only opinion based on your experiments not mine. You need to understand every SEO have their own experiments and their own nature of working. If you are ranking it without backlinks it's great but that doesn't mean you can deny my experience to rank keywords with backlinks.

Also don't know from where you check and when I said that "to have a job and dont want to" as I certainly don't remember saying it. Let’s keep this discussion focused on SEO and not personal situations. Whether I run websites or not doesn’t change the underlying facts about how search engines work. We’re discussing Google's algorithms, not my career path. I’ve shared facts, sources, and logic. If that’s not enough, then continuing the discussion won’t help either. We clearly see things differently, and that’s fine. Let’s agree to disagree and leave it here. If its going in personal level then I think you can stick to your experience and I will stick to mine. Take care.

harmananders said:

I keep hearing that backlinks are crucial for SEO, but I want to understand exactly why they matter and how much impact they have in 2025.

Click to expand...

Backlinks are like "votes of confidence" from one site to another. When a credible website links to your content, it signals to search engines (like Google) that your content is trustworthy, valuable, and authoritative.

harmananders said:

I keep hearing that backlinks are crucial for SEO, but I want to understand exactly why they matter and how much impact they have in 2025.

Click to expand...

- Trust and authority to search engine - Can boost your rankings especially High-quality backlinks
- Gain more organic traffic

These are basically the benefits you'll get, so why not..

LinklifterPro said:

Backlinks are like "votes of confidence" from one site to another. When a credible website links to your content, it signals to search engines (like Google) that your content is trustworthy, valuable, and authoritative.

Click to expand...

vinayseo said:

Google doesn’t blindly trust every link or mention. It has complex systems (yes, real ones — not link seller marketing fluff) to evaluate:

• Source credibility (Is the site known for expertise?)
• Relevance (Is the link naturally placed in a related context?)
• Consistency (Is the site trusted across other signals — content, engagement, etc.?)

Just like in the real world, we don’t stop trusting all recommendations because of a few bad ones. We refine how we judge them. The same logic applies to Google.

So no, links alone aren’t enough — but to ignore them completely would be like ignoring someone’s reputation in real life. That wouldn’t make sense either. Hope you got my point.

Click to expand...

Google does blindly rank stuff today when it comes from Yelp, Reddit, or the major brands

Want proof? Start putting in 'best swingers clubs in city' with American cities like Omaha, Minneapolis, Charlotte, St Louis, Tucson, Virginia Beach, or damn near any other American city

What do you see ranking first for all of those (one or two might be second)

Yelp lists titled Best Swingers Clubs In ZZZ that are all lists of strip clubs with ZERO MENTION that they aren't swingers clubs

Google ain't reading or breaking down or trying to understand shit these days because they don't care about search one bit, all they care about is AI, the moment they scraped and stole everyones content they put out the HCU and quit giving a shit about anything other then that

You can put 'best x in city' and search for literally anything and 95% of what you see is Yelp, TripAdvisor, Reddit, and Quora

Not because those are the best posts, not because they have the most info, but because Google doesn't give a shit anymore

vinayseo said:

I get the skepticism — but let’s stay real: claiming “Google doesn’t use backlinks anymore” is a pretty bold statement, especially when:

• Google’s own documentation (Search Central, Quality Rater Guidelines) consistently references links and link quality.
• John Mueller(I know every SEO hates him) and other Googlers have repeatedly said that while links aren’t everything, they are still used — just not in isolation.
• Every major SEO test, from platforms like Ahrefs, Moz, and others, still shows strong correlation between quality backlinks and rankings.

So if you're saying Google completely ignores backlinks — the burden of proof is actually on you to show when and where Google officially said they're obsolete.

Click to expand...

LOL this is one of the more naive posts I have ever seen

We need the company that just scraped, stole, and de-indexed the worlds websites to come out and tell us what they are doing after they named that process the 'Helpful Content Update'

They stole everything from us and hired a PR firm to give it the most positive sounding name they could, took everyones income, made us fire our VA's...... but hey they never said it so its probably just a misunderstanding right?

Start paying attention to the real world, not the world you hope we live in

LinklifterPro said:

Backlinks are like "votes of confidence" from one site to another. When a credible website links to your content, it signals to search engines (like Google) that your content is trustworthy, valuable, and authoritative.

Click to expand...

LinklifterPro said:

Link building is one of the most important pillars of SEO. It directly affects how search engines perceive and rank your website.

Summary: Link Building in SEO = Growth, Authority, and Visibility

Click to expand...

Says the guy shilling a link building service.... ie the only type of person who still believes the crap he just spewed (actually he probably doesnt really believe it anymore, he just doesnt care and wants your money)

GoogleWontRankUs said:

You can put 'best x in city' and search for literally anything and 95% of what you see is Yelp, TripAdvisor, Reddit, and Quora

Click to expand...

When you start your search with 'best...', you want results with websites making lists, Thats exacly what Yelp does. So Google just satisfy search intent. Nothing new. Try just 'swingers club' and you get local results. Probably satisfying search intent.

GoogleWontRankUs said:

Says the guy shilling a link building service.... ie the only type of person who still believes the crap he just spewed (actually he probably doesnt really believe it anymore, he just doesnt care and wants your money)

Click to expand...

Almost every topic on BHW is about selling and buying backlinks. I explained several times why it makes no sense. Only convinced a very few. Almost everybody believe in the bogus. Both sellers and buyers. Sellers are not open to any argument because that ruins their business (as you pointed out). Buyers are not open for arguments because it makes them feel stupid. All very understandable. So the scam goes on and on.