29 replies to this topic

[iamlost]

Michael_Martinez writing as Michael Martinez in SEO Theory is offering up $1000.00 to Anyone Who Provides A Credible Link Value Test, 01-June-2011.
Note: Some terms and conditions apply.

Time for SEOs to stop trusting the link fairy.

... none of you can show me which links are passing value. Not one of you. Even I cannot do that.

The only valid, credible test that anyone has produced in the last 12 years is the unique anchor text test...

Problem is, most links don’t use unique anchor text. In fact, most SEOs don’t even care about unique anchor text.

Bites tongue to stop from describing 'most SEOs'. However, I'll let the quotation marked implication stand.

Intuitively it may look like every site that ranks first for a specific term is doing so because of links but I can find many queries where the top-listed sites have far fewer links than the sites below them. And don’t give me any B.S. about “link quality”. You wouldn’t know a quality link if it sat on your lap and stroked your face.

:rofl:

Until you can tell whether a link passes value within a search engine’s index, you are wasting your time with all your “backlink research”.

Until you can tell whether a link passes value within a search engine’s index, you are wasting your time with all your “competitive research”.

Until you can tell whether a link passes value within a search engine’s index, you are throwing your money away on paid links, spun articles, blog networks, and outsourced link building.

I have three comments:
First: while I agree that it is improbable that anyone outside of a given search engine (and few even there) know if a given link is passing value or, if so, which values (definition list not included for the purposes of this post) should the improbable occur such a competitive advantage would tend to deep dark silence.

Second: the illusion of demanding specific link value identification is a gi-normous hook on which to hang the accompanying premise.

Third: while I optimise I do not specifically optimise for SEs although more often than not the results may look as though I do.
Corollary: backlink research, competitive research et al are not confined within a SE focus.
Addendum: links and competitors came before SEs, have value beyond SEs.
Note: all of which I know you know but just saying for those who believe the web revolves around Google.

Have I ever bought links? Yes. Very specific links for very explicit reasons. But none in recent years. Have I ever requested links? Yes. Again, very specific links for very explicit reasons. Few in recent years. And never explicitly for SE ranking, only for initial indexing.

What deliberate backlink building I've ever done has been for traffic value, especially targeted traffic conversion value. And that can be confirmed by log file and click track analysis.

However, I do run occasional non-SE referer analysis that includes looking at the relative (increasingly so in these days of personalised searches) SERP (in B, G & Y) of the referring page (for the anchor text and (undisclosed) associated terms). This is not a look at it's TBPR but SE query positions.

Does that tell me whether the link itself is passing any value to my page? No. However, it does provide relative potential values that when when added to similar data for other backlinks of my page and SE traffic volume and convertibility (and occasional query SERPs input) can be illuminating.

Personally that is as close as I have been able to get to your demand. Within site of the ballpark but not close enough to call the pitches.

[EGOL]

ha! I'd really like to grab some cash from Michael's wallet.

However, the biggest problem that I see in determining the value of a link is an ability to divine the amount of "trust" that the search engines place on the link and an ability to know if it has been devalued for sins that can only be found in the bowels of the site.

Edited by EGOL, 05 June 2011 - 09:17 AM.

[Ron Carnell]

... no one in the SEO industry can tell if a link is passing value.

Of course not. Just as no doctor can know, without extensive experimentation, precisely which medications will help eliminate the symptoms of clinical depression. And just as no physicist can know the precise location and speed of an elementary particle. And, for that matter, just as Michael Martinez can never know for sure what was in the mind of J.R.R. Tolkien when he wrote the Hobbit.

The premise is simple: If you can't know everything, you don't know anything.

Sadly, the world we live in isn't nearly so simple as the premise. Reality requires that we roll out of bed in the morning, brush our teeth and get dressed, even when we can't really know what the day is going to bring. We have to speculate. We have to rely on probability and statistics. Hell, most of us push through the day on nothing more than instinct, experience, and gut feeling.

"I didn't get hit by a bus the last five hundred times I stepped off this curb, so . . . "

"The dealer busted the last five times she had a six showing, so . . ."

"The last time my temperature went up I had an infection, so . . ."

Life. It's not always science, it's rarely clean or pretty, and it's never ever ever precise. But you know what else it's not? It's not always arbitrary and it's rarely as simple as pure luck. It's one choice leading to another choice leading to the next. To think otherwise is to ignore the fact there are invariably some people who do it better than others. Not just once in a while, but usually. Not every single time, but still more than most. Not scientifically, not precisely, but nonetheless . . . reliably.

For the record, I've never bought a link. Never reciprocated a link, either. Hell, I've never even requested a link. But I have a lot of friends in the industry who do, and even if they never produce a mathematical E equals MC squared proof of link value, I will continue to trust their judgment. Why?

I've seen the results.

[bwelford]

I think the concept of a single dimension 'link value' that somehow is a factor in the algorithm is far too simple. It doesn't work like that.

Just think of Local SEO where the links from other local directory-type sites (Yelp, etc.) will influence your rating in local searches based on location. Since most searches may well result in personalized results, that means a given link will be influential dependent on the searcher's location.

It's rather like asking whether there is a measure of intelligence for a human being. You can get all sorts of different measures, some of which have been simplified into a single number, the intelligence quotient. However we all know there is no single number that everyone would accept. It depends on the circumstances.

[Dr.Marie]

What an interesting article. I didn't know that JC Penny's ranks returned to their previous level even after the link spam was removed.

So, it sounds like Michael is saying that we simply do not know what counts as a quality link in Google's eyes. It seems like he is saying to just keep building links and hope that some of them are good ones.

My theory is that Google does all they can to figure out whether a link is natural or built by the owner. So, I do believe that a link from a PR0 site could actually be quite helpful to me if Google's algorithm has determined that I did nothing (other than create great content) to create that link.

[DonnaFontenot]

@Ron Carnell - +1

[test-ok]

oh so true..we'll never know the value..I too think it's an easy formula. I also think if you look at a links as an end user would and evaluate it that way, you shouldn't be far off..I mean you can tell spam when ya see it..
Googles getting more human every day. Treat it like a human and ya won't be far off. But who really knows?

[A.N.Onym]

It seems like he is saying to just keep building links and hope that some of them are good ones.

He says the opposite, from the comments:

Michael: Yes, if you build a lot of links, random chance should bring you some that pass value. That’s what I mean by “waiting for the link fairy”. It’s not a very efficient way of optimizing for search.

Also, just to poke holes into his test, it doesn't even mention whether the link is relevant to the website that it links to. Same with relevant traffic and conversion value, as iamlost mentioned.

Then again, perhaps Michael wants a very narrow test: if the link is passing any value (not whether the link is good or bad). Practically speaking, I'd spend the time to get *many* links I know to have value both for humans and non-humans. So, I can't really accept this:

You’re NOT proving you are clever, knowledgeable, or even very good at search engine optimization. You’re just proving you’re lazy, inefficient, and either don’t care or don’t know what you are doing.

I have repeatedly gotten hundreds of natural, relevant links I knew were passing value, because I've seen the results. If this is the wrong way to get targeted traffic (this is what I got from the links themselves and the search engines), then I clearly don't know what I'm doing.

Well said, Ron

Edited by A.N.Onym, 06 June 2011 - 01:31 AM.

[Michael_Martinez]

NOTE: I have edited this post from what I originally wrote.

I have a lot of friends in the industry who do, and even if they never produce a mathematical E equals MC squared proof of link value, I will continue to trust their judgment. Why?

The restoration of JC Penney's rankings after those "bad links" were supposedly disavowed, removed, and/or filtered by Google proves that the links weren't all that the red-faced SEO industry made them out to be.

This has nothing to do with "life" or J.R.R. Tolkien. This is about all the crap that people in the SEO industry publish without knowing what they are talking about.

It's time for the SEO link experts to put up -- and they clearly cannot -- or shut up.

Edited by Michael_Martinez, 06 June 2011 - 01:19 AM.

[Michael_Martinez]

Also, just to poke holes into his test, it doesn't even mention whether the link is relevant to the website that it links to. Same with relevant traffic and conversion value, as iamlost mentioned.

Where is the hole you're trying to poke?

If I link to Cre8asiteForums.com with the anchor text "a really great place to meet nice people", is that relevant?

If I link to Cre8asiteForums.com with the anchor text "a place where people share ideas", is that relevant?

If I link to Cre8asiteForums.com with the anchor text "a conceptual basin in the garden spot of intellectualism", is that relevant?

If I link to Cre8asiteForums.com with the anchor text "my backyard", is that relevant?

If I link to Cre8asiteForums.com with the anchor text "creative site ideas", is that relevant?

Where does relevance begin and end? If I metaphorically refer to these forums as "the bakery down the street", is that relevant? When does my metaphor become relevant to the Website.

Then again, perhaps Michael wants a very narrow test: if the link is passing any value (not whether the link is good or bad). Practically speaking, I'd spend the time to get *many* links I know to have value both for humans and non-humans. So, I can't really accept this:

What I want is a test that actually justifies all the time people spend looking at potential resources and other sites' backlinks. Until they can actually determine which links are passing value, they don't know if sites are ranking because of or in spite of all the links pointing to them.

There are way to many queries where heavily linked sites are outranked by lightly linked sites for anyone to feel justified in claiming that their linking strategies work.

If you're going build the floor in your house, you'll know whether it works when you do or do not fall through.

If you're going to build a car from a kit, you'll know whether it works when it starts or fails to do so.

If you're going to mow your grass with a pair of tweezers, you'll know whether that works when you see how many blades of grass you have cut.

In other words, like Jesus said when he laid down the Scientific Principle: You will know the tree by the fruit it bears.

If the best you can muster is a long list of linking pages that don't indicate which links are passing value, then claiming that the links are responsible for whatever rankings success you achieve is equivalent to saying that the moon circles the Earth because people pray to it.

After all, the moon is moving away from the Earth a little bit each year, just as fewer people pray to the moon each year. Clearly, that's all the evidence we need to show that prayer keeps the moon in orbit around the moon.

The point of the challenge was to get people to stop blindly subscribing to the myth that any specific backlink profile they compile explains what is happening in the SERPs. Those backlink profiles explain nothing. Until you can ascertain where the value is flowing you DON'T know anything and all the huffing and puffing and blowing down of houses doesn't many anyone's belief in the Link Fairy any more valid than a belief in the idea that prayers keep the moon circling the Earth.

It really is THAT simple.

Edited by Michael_Martinez, 06 June 2011 - 02:05 AM.

[A.N.Onym]

A link is relevant, if there's a chance that a visitor, brought through the link, either through itself or indirectly through a search engine, would register at Cre8asite Forums and share/discuss how to build better websites together. It's about the website/page/context, not just anchor text.

Michael, you are right that there are many things that we don't know about the search algorithm, specifically about each individual link passing value (and let alone measuring its value in the myriads of other links). But we do know that there's the strongest probability that the links that aren't discounted are natural links. There are many other factors that influence this, such as whether the linking page/site is passing PR, but it's another story. Thus, I believe in natural links, obtained semi-automatically, rather than in targeted purchase of links that may or may not pass link value.

Also, if you imply the link value test from the point of view of wasting time on seeking places to get links manually, then it's just a wrong problem to tackle in a way that you'd rather improve the method you want to get links, not how you use the method.

If you want a tool that accurately determines whether the link passes any value, while using the manual link hunting method, then so be it. Knowing which competitor's links work may help. Or may not. Though I do admit that looking at competitor's link profiles can give me ideas on where to get links. But it doesn't mean I'll always beg a link from the same source that had already linked to my competitor.

Also, you said:

Until you can tell whether a link passes value within a search engine’s index, you are wasting your time with all your “backlink research”.
Until you can tell whether a link passes value within a search engine’s index, you are wasting your time with all your “competitive research”.
Until you can tell whether a link passes value within a search engine’s index, you are throwing your money away on paid links, spun articles, blog networks, and outsourced link building.

If you don't want to "waste your time and money with keyword research, competitive research and link building", then the test has to include any response from the search engine's indexing/analysis system. Thus, you'll want to wait for more, than 10 minutes, unless you only want to rely on the TBPR page value or anything that does *or does not* relate to the algorithm

Edited by A.N.Onym, 06 June 2011 - 06:54 AM.

[DonnaFontenot]

What I want is a test that actually justifies all the time people spend looking at potential resources and other sites' backlinks. Until they can actually determine which links are passing value, they don't know if sites are ranking because of or in spite of all the links pointing to them.

- I agree that looking at a backlink profile really doesn't tell us whether the site is ranking because of or in spite of all the links pointing to them. If that's the point you are trying to make, then I get it.

- And if the point is to also remind professional link builders to refrain from spouting off with certainty, when none exists, then I can stand by that as well.

However, the entire field of SEO is built upon uncertainty, yet many people can successfully build layer upon layer upon that unstable foundation. And that's where Ron's argument above comes into play. There are clear advantages to doing competitive research, as long as one remembers that there are no absolutes when viewing the data. Personally, I look at competitive research, which includes backlink profiles, as a high-level exercise. It gives me a general feel for what I'm up against, but I don't see it as much other than that. That doesn't mean there aren't other, deeper, insights to be gained from the data. I'm sure many smart people can glean real nuggets of information, insight, and ideas from studying the data in detail. And again, as long as they keep in mind that there are no absolutes, then more power to them. I'm just not one of those people who has the time to delve that deeply. If I had a few assistants however, I can see handing off that job to one of them as a test, to see if some good thoughts arise from it.

I am fully in the camp of being irritated with the professionals in our industry who say things that really they shouldn't be saying. I wrote about my irritation with that a few months ago, and titled it, "I Like You But I Won’t Help You Pat Your Misguided Back". Yes, some people I know well, like very much, and even appreciate their skills, were the inspiration for that post. I'm tired of hearing people say, "see, we obviously do things the right way (so hire us), because we didn't fall in the latest algo change", when in actuality, the reason they didn't fall may or may not have anything to do with anything they did or didn't do. It's that air of "we are right, we know, and we are absolutely certain" that is hard to stomach, when in fact, they may be right, or they may be wrong, but the one thing they can't be is absolutely certain.

Nevertheless, each of us has to operate based on our own gut feelings, our own experiences, our own tests (no matter how flawed the tests may be), and our own abilities and inabilities. I'm sure I've said things with an air of certainty over the years that I shouldn't have been so certain about. We're human, we do that.

It doesn't hurt to remind the pros in our industry that things are really not so clear, so if that's MM's intent, I can get behind that. But once we get past that point, then I'm back into Ron's camp. That's the thing about life. It's not black and white. I can be in MM's camp for some things, and Ron's camp for others, and maybe 100 other camps all at the same time.

[jonbey]

Whenever I look at backlinks it is not to analyse and attempt to determine the value of the links but just to see which ones I could get too. Maybe not the most profitable use of my time but then I am not an "SEO" really. My approach is that if a competitor has a link somewhere and I can get one too then that helps to chip away at their lead.

[Michael_Martinez]

Thus, you'll want to wait for more, than 10 minutes, unless you only want to rely on the TBPR page value or anything that does *or does not* relate to the algorithm

I can agree with pretty much everything you said up to this point. The 10-minute test should only be applicable to existing links. That is, I should be able to pull up a link profile on any SEO tool (such Open Site Explorer) and apply the test to any randomly selected link. Since the link is already indexed, its value should already be (not) passing. Maybe that will change, maybe not. The test itself doesn't have to predict future value-passing, just report current value-passing (or lack thereof).

However, the entire field of SEO is built upon uncertainty, yet many people can successfully build layer upon layer upon that unstable foundation. And that's where Ron's argument above comes into play. There are clear advantages to doing competitive research, as long as one remembers that there are no absolutes when viewing the data. Personally, I look at competitive research, which includes backlink profiles, as a high-level exercise. It gives me a general feel for what I'm up against, but I don't see it as much other than that. That doesn't mean there aren't other, deeper, insights to be gained from the data. I'm sure many smart people can glean real nuggets of information, insight, and ideas from studying the data in detail. And again, as long as they keep in mind that there are no absolutes, then more power to them. I'm just not one of those people who has the time to delve that deeply. If I had a few assistants however, I can see handing off that job to one of them as a test, to see if some good thoughts arise from it.

I agree with you 100% that there is a heavily intuitive aspect to what we do -- and that there is a degree of success that puts the intuitive process well above the 50/50 randomness of a placebo technique. And I agree that competitive research can provide us with intuitive insight into the strategy that other sites and SEOs are following.

My issue is not with the process or even with the people who depend upon the process.

My issue is with the unfounded blanket declarations of "truth" in the (perceived) overwhelming value of link building. The JC Penney affair has proven conclusively that the SEO industry has put more emphasis on the links than (in this case) the search engine -- BECAUSE THEIR RANKINGS RETURNED without the links.

The emperor's new clothes have been shown for what they are: nothing.

We DO need links. Links DO build trust, authority, and pass anchor text. Just not ALL links and certainly not in any way that we can be sure of.

The links we get the most value from are not the links we obtain for search engine optimization but rather the links that we obtain for visibility, traffic, credibility, etc.

Some of those "SEO links" do help -- at least for a while, at least a little bit. We just don't know which ones are helping or how much.

I can't optimize without links but neither can I truly optimize on the basis of links. It's the combination of the links and the content that the search engine is looking for and it's far easier to measure the impact of what the search engine does with the content than it is to measure the impact of what the search engine does with the links.

I'm willing to pay up to $1,000 for a credible test. After 12+ years of doing this both personally and professionally, I just don't think such a test exists. Maybe a few years ago there was one, but now there are too many conditions placed on links.

All I really ask is that people who sprinkle link dust across the Web and wait for the Link Fairy just face up to the fact that that is indeed what they are doing. They have to come down off their high horses and stop pretending that they have the magic formula. They don't.

Ironically, many people in the link spamming forums are now saying that their low-quality links don't seem to be working. It's some hard-to-measure proportion of the "professional SEOs" who won't let get of the link binky. You know them when they make the blanket statement without stopping to think about what events like the JC Penney restoration and Google Panda have done to show that "link building" doesn't deliver the goods the way people claimed it did.

Even if it could be shown things were different as recently as a year ago, what does it matter? We have to optimize for today's search engines.

Edited by Michael_Martinez, 06 June 2011 - 10:46 AM.

[Ron Carnell]

This has nothing to do with "life" or J.R.R. Tolkien. This is about all the crap that people in the SEO industry publish without knowing what they are talking about.

Everything has to do with life, Michael. And a surprisingly lot of everything has to do with Tolkien, too. And Star Wars, of course.

And yes, there's an awful lot of crap in the SEO industry. More crap than not crap, I'd say. But that's a glass house you've been living in for over a decade, Michael. Crap doesn't stop stinking just because one has grown accustomed to the smell.

There are way to (sic) many queries where heavily linked sites are outranked by lightly linked sites for anyone to feel justified in claiming that their linking strategies work.

LOL. But aren't you now making the same mistake you claim the SEO industry is making? What do you mean by "heavily" and "lightly?" If you can't assign a number to those subjective terms, doesn't that mean you're wasting your time comparing them? Without that definitive test you say no one can supply, Michael, you can't assign adjectives to linkage any more than those you're criticizing can.

Don't worry, though. We all know what you mean. Comparatives work because human beings are really good at making judgments. It's not scientific, it's not always perfect, but it works surprisingly well in spite of those limitations.

And, yea, there are a lot of lightly linked sites that outrank heavily linked ones. There are also, sadly, a lot of spam sites that outrank those with really good content. So? I don't think we can safely reach the conclusion that links and good content are both useless just because Google's algorithm doesn't always produce the expected results. It's a pretty complicated algorithm, after all, and clearly doesn't rely on one or two simple criteria. When push comes to shove, it's still JUST an algorithm.

The point of the challenge was to get people to stop blindly subscribing to the myth that any specific backlink profile they compile explains what is happening in the SERPs. Those backlink profiles explain nothing. Until you can ascertain where the value is flowing you DON'T know anything and all the huffing and puffing and blowing down of houses doesn't many anyone's belief in the Link Fairy any more valid than a belief in the idea that prayers keep the moon circling the Earth.

Michael, I sympathize with your frustration. Really, I do. It would be wonderful to quantify link values. With such a tool, anyone could easily do what only a handful of experienced experts can reliably do today. It would be nice to level that playing field.

It would also be nice if I could paint like Picasso or write like Shakespeare. Give me a formula that can replace their talent, craft, experience, and judgment, and I too could turn out my own Guernicas and Midsummer Night's Dreams. I'll admit I'm selfish enough to want that. But I'm not blind enough to claim that Picasso and Shakespeare couldn't possibly do what they so obviously did.

While my own lack of understanding makes their genius seem like magic, I don't actually believe they called on painting fairies or writing fairies. Nor do I think they were born with their abilities. Painters learn to paint, writers learn to write, each putting one step in front of the other over the course of years, of decades, often throughout an entire lifetime. Painting and writing are skills that can be acquired, even if they can't be quantified by formulas or repeatable scientific tests.

Most of us won't be Picasso or Shakespeare, of course, but with a little talent and a lot of experience, we can at least get past the point where it all seems like magic. SEO, after all, is a whole lot easier than art. At best, it's a craft. Maybe a sport?

Do we really need to know the speed of the ball before we can swing the bat?

My issue is with the unfounded blanket declarations of "truth" in the (perceived) overwhelming value of link building. The JC Penney affair has proven conclusively that the SEO industry has put more emphasis on the links than (in this case) the search engine -- BECAUSE THEIR RANKINGS RETURNED without the links.

But again, Michael, you're doing the same thing you're criticizing. You're making an unfounded blanket declaration of "truth" and you're doing it without supply us with a definitive test. The JC Penney affair is an isolated case and, as such, can't prove anything. At best, it can only suggest.

How about this? Move all of your content to new domains so you can show us your rankings will come back without any links? That still won't actually prove anything, but the suggestion will certainly become much stronger.

The Penney debacle isn't the kind of industry news I follow closely; I made note of the incident when it surfaced, but then quickly moved on to something more useful. Nor do I want to spend a lot of time on it now. I can, however, formulate half a dozen explanations for what has happened, the simplest of which is that your contention that their rankings have returned is perhaps not as absolute as you imply it is. The original Times article said Penney's was ranking number one for samsonite carry on luggage? They are no longer ranking number one for that term, nor are they even on the first page. At least not today. Clearly, all of the rankings haven't returned, Michael.

Those that have returned?

Again, they can easily be explained by the simple fact that Penney's never ranked for anything that wasn't relevant. I think it should be clear to most that they actually deserved many of the good rankings they enjoyed. If you're already at number one for a search term, adding a few hundred links -- be they good, bad, or indifferent -- isn't going to take you any higher. You'll still be at number one. And, yea, taking away those few hundred links isn't going to take you any lower. You'll still be at number one. At least until you get caught.

Michael, if you want to change your blanket declaration of truth to a claim that J.C. Penney's SEO firm was wasting their time and money accumulating links, I might be able to buy into it. There might even be one or twenty more of the same ilk. Extending that to an entire industry, however, simply conflicts with too much of my experience. The people I know and admire evaluate every link they go after too carefully to fall under your umbrella, and they seem to have a pretty darn good feel for what works and what doesn't work. They don't have formulas (and if they did, I doubt they would share them for a mere thousand bucks), but their results suggest they don't need them.

[Michael_Martinez]

LOL. But aren't you now making the same mistake you claim the SEO industry is making? What do you mean by "heavily" and "lightly?" If you can't assign a number to those subjective terms, doesn't that mean you're wasting your time comparing them? Without that definitive test you say no one can supply, Michael, you can't assign adjectives to linkage any more than those you're criticizing can.

No, no mistake being made at all. When SEO Pundit X says something like, "Only the most heavily linked Websites rank 1st" and I can randomly find Websites in competitive queries that rank 1st but have fewer reported links (via all the common SEO link research tools), that's a pretty simple and easily-verified test.

In fact, it's so easy to debunk these ranking claims that many people often crop up in forum discussions and say, "But Website so-and-so outranks its competitors and it has only a handful of links. How do you explain that?" And then the hemming and hawing starts.

But again, Michael, you're doing the same thing you're criticizing. You're making an unfounded blanket declaration of "truth" and you're doing it without supply us with a definitive test. The JC Penney affair is an isolated case and, as such, can't prove anything. At best, it can only suggest.

Nonsense. The JC Penney rankings return is well-documented. Many SEOs expressed their frustration over the situation. If you want to argue with someone on the issue, take it up with Matt McGee. Maybe what he was reporting was just a fluke.

How about this? Move all of your content to new domains so you can show us your rankings will come back without any links? That still won't actually prove anything, but the suggestion will certainly become much stronger.

Why would I need to do that when I demonstrate the ability to achieve high rankings without "link building" all the time? Most of the links I earn these days are not keyword-rich links -- the anchor text isn't propelling my content to the top of the SERPs. In fact, my content generall ranks before the links appear.

Simply moving to another site wouldn't change anything. The site would eventually accrue the authority you're obliquely referring to. I'd have to create crappy content that interests no one to earn no links and acquire no authority.

Now, if you want to be the first SEO in history to step up to the plate and actually prove that all those link building claims are NOT bogus -- hey, I'll be reading your proofs with all interest.

[Ron Carnell]

No, no mistake being made at all. When SEO Pundit X says something like, "Only the most heavily linked Websites rank 1st" and I can randomly find Websites in competitive queries that rank 1st but have fewer reported links (via all the common SEO link research tools), that's a pretty simple and easily-verified test.

I'd love to see a link, Michael, to any reputable SEO personality who claims the number of links to a page, by itself, determines ranking. I will be more than happy to join you in calling them, uh, misinformed (not the first word I typed).

Nonsense. The JC Penney rankings return is well-documented. Many SEOs expressed their frustration over the situation. If you want to argue with someone on the issue, take it up with Matt McGee. Maybe what he was reporting was just a fluke.

Perhaps you'd like to quote somewhere in that article, or any article, where Matt says or even suggests that the Penney's incident proves something definitive about links?

First, Michael, one instance of anything is rarely considered definitive. The word "outlier" exists for a reason.

Second, Matt strongly suggests in that article that the dust hasn't yet settled. Google apparently hadn't recrawled/reindexed Penney's site when the piece was written and it's not even clear whether Google had dropped the links that got Penney's into hot water with them. Google isn't nearly as quick to adjust as some might believe; give it a month or two and THEN draw some conclusions based on Penney's SERPs.

The penalty was lifted. And that's really the ONLY THING anyone outside Google knows for certain.

Now, if you want to be the first SEO in history to step up to the plate and actually prove that all those link building claims are NOT bogus -- hey, I'll be reading your proofs with all interest.

Please be specific, Michael. I doubt I am qualified to explain ALL link building claims, but I'll be happy to discuss any you might want to raise. I suspect we could even agree on some few of them being bogus, or at least highly suspect.

However, we haven't been talking about all link building claims. At least, I haven't been.

The only link building claim you've addressed in your blog post seems, to me, to be the assertion that some people can tell a good link from a questionable one. Your counter link building claim seems, again to me, to be that no one can effectively solicit links without a hard number attached to those links.

I think I've already explained why that would at best be unreasonable and, for people with sufficient experience, completely unnecessary.

Why would I need to do that when I demonstrate the ability to achieve high rankings without "link building" all the time?

You mean the same way others continuously demonstrate their ability to achieve high rankings with link building?

You wrote in your blog post that you "admitted publicly to building links in volume," so I think I can safely say I do less link building that you do, Michael. I've never even asked for a link before, singly or in volume. If you want to claim that actively soliciting links is unnecessary, you won't hear any quibbles from this corner. But that's not what you're claiming, is it?

If you've tried building links in the past and failed to see results, I think I can understand your perspective. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. I have to wonder, though, how your perspective might be different today had you succeeded?

The bottom line, Michael, as I said in my very first post, is that there undeniably ARE people who have succeeded and continue to do so on a pretty reliable basis.

[bwelford]

To bring another perspective to this, I believe I am seeing many fewer requests for reciprocal links. Has anyone else noted this slow down? Perhaps that shows that folk in general are realizing that irrelevant back links aren't worth a pinch of (add your word of choice).

[Michael_Martinez]

I'd love to see a link, Michael, to any reputable SEO personality who claims the number of links to a page, by itself, determines ranking. I will be more than happy to join you in calling them, uh, misinformed (not the first word I typed).

How precise will you insist that the language be? Can it be as broad as "Professional SEOs attribute a considerable portion of the search engines' algorithms to link-based factors (see Search Engine Ranking Factors)"? They get more specific in sections like this:

One of the strongest signals the engines use in rankings is anchor text. If dozens of links point to a page with the right keywords, that page has a very good probability of ranking well for the targeted phrase in that anchor text. You can see examples of this in action with searches like "click here" and "leave," where many results rank solely due to the anchor text of inbound links.

No mention of "link quality" there.

How about something like this? "Those sites that have the most links, tend to get more, because those sites have the wealth of exposure already"? (NOTE: He is talking about Mike Grehan's "Filthy Linking Rich" principle, which I have also talked about in similar terms.) He goes on to say:

This is why it can be tough to get a new site ranked.
Those sites that are link poor, no matter how great they are, will struggle to be found in the search engines. "If you're great, people will link to you" is not necessarily true because a link-poor site is unlikely to show up in the search results in the first place. Initial discovery will likely happen via other means.

Again, no mention of "link quality".

A lot of people would agree with him -- but he's not really quantifying anything here. I have gotten "link poor" sites that had at least SOME links to rank well enough to build search referral traffic. I'm sure many others here have too.

Still, the lip service that the SEO industry pays to the concept of "link quality" vanishes quickly the more deeply you look at what people are actually saying in defense of or to justify link acquisition.

How many examples do I need to provide? These are not isolated incidents. The issue is endemic to our industry.

Perhaps you'd like to quote somewhere in that article, or any article, where Matt says or even suggests that the Penney's incident proves something definitive about links?

So if your counterpoint (that I'm the only person talking about JC Penney's restored rankings) is shown to be invalid by a reference to an article that talks about the restored rankings, you just want to change the counterpoint to something else?

You said the JC Penney test was an isolated test -- a test of what? It's a recent example of what happens when a penalty is lifted, and we've seen that effect time and time again. Overstock also apparently got their rankings back. Is that isolated too? Considering how few penalties Google discusses openly, we're 2-for-2 in recent examples. That's a small sample but hardly "isolated".

Do you have any actual counter-examples? I'd love to see a link.

Please be specific, Michael. I doubt I am qualified to explain ALL link building claims, but I'll be happy to discuss any you might want to raise. I suspect we could even agree on some few of them being bogus, or at least highly suspect.

However, we haven't been talking about all link building claims. At least, I haven't been.

But I have.

If you really want to respond, start with the claims made by the SEO bloggers to whom I linked above. I'll spare us all the nonsense posted in various SEO forums by people who use screen names (although it's the forum comments that appear to reflect current thinking in the industry better than anything else).

You mean the same way others continuously demonstrate their ability to achieve high rankings with link building?

I've never seen anyone do that. Please feel free to provide a link.

You wrote in your blog post that you "admitted publicly to building links in volume," so I think I can safely say I do less link building that you do, Michael. I've never even asked for a link before, singly or in volume. If you want to claim that actively soliciting links is unnecessary, you won't hear any quibbles from this corner. But that's not what you're claiming, is it?

Actually, it is. The volume link building I engaged in for clients was not through the usual low-volume channels. We built low-quality Websites. Lots of them. We also commissioned thousands of articles from off-shore writers that were passed through a duplicate-detection system. We also commissioned human-edited spun articles from a high-end service. We also wrote high-quality articles in-house. And we had a small portfolio of paid links.

Agencies have a lot of pressure placed upon them and they naturally turn to links. I did my best to create as much content as possible to reduce the number of links we needed to place.

Years ago I did ask for links before linking became the SEO obsession that it has become today. I asked for links from many Websites because I wanted their visitors to know about my sites. But I stopped all that after it became obvious that Webmasters were growing distrustful of link requests.

If you've tried building links in the past and failed to see results, I think I can understand your perspective.

I didn't fail to see results, Ron. Everyone knows that SOME of those links worked. We just don't know which of them worked, how well they worked, or if they would work today.

I don't believe in pretending I'm not waiting for the Link Fairy. I won't ask anyone to believe otherwise. If I find myself in a situation again where I am forced to get links, I'll be waiting for the Link Fairy again.

That's what successful link builders do. I'm just more honest about it than most.

To bring another perspective to this, I believe I am seeing many fewer requests for reciprocal links. Has anyone else noted this slow down? Perhaps that shows that folk in general are realizing that irrelevant back links aren't worth a pinch of (add your word of choice).

I monitor several forums, Barry, where people openly share their experiences in volume link building. I'm talking about people who buy, reciprocate, and spam links as much as possible. In every one of those forums the chatter has turned to a chorus of "What do we do now?"

Only a small minority of the participants still claim their methods work, and I think most of them are hedging what they say.

I don't think link spam is dead. It's just on hiatus until someone finds a new way to exploit the trust and goodwill of both Webmasters and Google's algorithm.

[Ron Carnell]

Perhaps that shows that folk in general are realizing that irrelevant back links aren't worth a pinch of (add your word of choice).

Reciprocal link requests are, indeed, down for me, too, Barry. Blog spam, however, is right through the roof. If people were getting smarter I would expect both to follow similar curves?

No mention of "link quality" there.

Well, no, not in that particular paragraph, Michael. But just about everything else on that page mentions it, including: "Through links, engines analyze the popularity of a site & page based on the number and popularity of pages linking to them, as well as metrics like trust, spam, and authority."

Is there a specific point with which you disagreed? Even, perhaps, within the single paragraph you quoted?

Again, no mention of "link quality".

And again . . . not directly. But since Peter (always my favorite cynic) is building his case on the shoulders of Mike Grehan, perhaps a short quotation from the source might be relevant?

"I believe you may be very interested to know that the scale of the problem is rapidly getting greater with the bias of a static based "link popularity" algorithm such as PageRank, largely the cause of the problem."

And as we all know, neither link popularity in general nor PageRank specifically are based solely on the number of links pointing to a page.

More importantly, Michael, anyone in this game, anyone who knows Rand, Peter, or Grehan, isn't going to easily accept that those people are out there advocating that the number of links to a page is the sole determination of ranking. If one or more of them would like to stop in here and tell me I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to apologize and eat my words.

FWIW, if you want to start another thread on Grehan's theory, I'll be glad to participate. Suffice it to say, there are some important points upon which I disagree with Mike.

So if your counterpoint (that I'm the only person talking about JC Penney's restored rankings) is shown to be invalid by a reference to an article that talks about the restored rankings, you just want to change the counterpoint to something else?

I never said you were the only person talking about Penney's restored rankings, Michael. I don't think I even implied it anywhere?

You said the JC Penney test was an isolated test -- a test of what?

No, I never called it a test; I said it was an isolated incident. Perhaps the confusion arose because immediately before I called it an isolated incident, I said you were presenting your conclusions as fact without supplying us with a definitive test -- you know, like the test you're asking others to submit to?

It's a recent example of what happens when a penalty is lifted, and we've seen that effect time and time again. Overstock also apparently got their rankings back. Is that isolated too?

Yea, it is. Obviously so, I should think?

But if you had a thousand such examples, Michael, is still wouldn't necessarily lead to the conclusions you've apparently reached. How does a few sites, or even a thousand sites, regaining their ranking after a penalty prove that link building is an ineffective use of resources?

But I have.

If you really want to respond, start with the claims made by the SEO bloggers to whom I linked above. I'll spare us all the nonsense posted in various SEO forums by people who use screen names (although it's the forum comments that appear to reflect current thinking in the industry better than anything else).

No, forum comments, I think, just reflect the lowest common denominator. Blogs do, too, I suppose, but those are more easily avoided. Bad blog equals don't go there any more. Bad comments, however, are often interspersed with good ones.

In any event, Michael, I'm not terribly interested in debunking ALL link building claims, at least not in one thread. I think I'm content, at this point, to debunk just the one you proposed in the blog post already referenced.

I've never seen anyone do that. Please feel free to provide a link.

Sorry, but I've been very careful to NOT put any of my friends on the spot. It a little hard to believe, though, that you don't know any of them. I know there are a few others here who certainly do.

Everyone knows that SOME of those links worked. We just don't know which of them worked, how well they worked, or if they would work today.

LOL. Welcome to the world of marketing, Michael.

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." John Wanamaker

"Actually, it's closer to 1% of your advertising that works, at the most. Your billboard reaches 100,000 people and if you're lucky, it gets you a hundred customers..." Seth Godin

None of which proves, or even suggests, that marketing, advertising or link building can't be done well just because we don't have definitive tests to demonstrate specific worth.