Is it possible to have good SEO without links and with only quality content?
-
Is it possible to have good SEO without links and with only quality content? Have you any experience?
-
Alex, sorry it's taken a bit for us to get this one published -- but I wanted to let you know, this Whiteboard Friday will be published tomorrow morning, 10/24.
-
Possible? Yes. Likely? No. And I'm assuming that by good SEO you mean ranking well in Google.
Links are still the biggest factor for ranking. Matt Cutts repeated this again recently and studies back it up. Don't let the anti-link builders, pro-relationship builders, or whatever they're calling themselves at the moment brainwash you.
-
Hi Chris, Rand, Travis, Zippy and all the fans-moz,
In our agency we have very good results in some sites only with quality content, but ... but only on websites with easy competition and also for the quality of content, are gaining natural links (as it should be :)) .
My answer to the question "Is it possible to have good SEO without links and with only quality content?" is: yes and no.
You can only do a good SEO with quality content that these contents are slowly gaining good links.My answer to the question "Is it possible to have good SEO without linkbuilding and with only without quality content?" is: YES
The link building is a dialogue and not a single order, the link building is an alliance of mutual benefit rather than a purchase. -
...great
-
I've managed a few campaigns where the client had zilch domain age, in a competitive space. My team and I squeezed everything we could out of on-page. The results were in line with my expectations. (Local targeting. The clients showed on the first page within a couple weeks. I have high expectations.)
Granted, we do get a handful of links at the beginning. Not doing so is just crazy talk. Though I realize this is a discussion thread.
What I will say is that I'm getting more traction with less links. So either we're just getting stupid lucky with links, or we've become god-like with on-page. Though I would realistically think that on-page is getting a significant boost and we're doing as well as we've ever done; perhaps a bit better, given experience.
-
Hi Alex,
I've some trepidation about going up against whiteboard Friday but my experience is that it is possible for less competitive keywords. I do inhouse SEO for a company in an industrial B2B market. To a large extent there are few link building opportunities and most of the ones there are on directory sites. There are no blogs and social media is non-existent.
So we target about a 100 keywords that have a moz difficulty of between 17 and 25%. They probably have about 50 - 200 global exact searches a month on Google. A single converting enquiry can lead to $200,000 in sales.
So given that we, and all our competitors, have little support from link building, the battle is all about onpage optimisation. Out of maybe 100 global competitors about 20 have a web presence that is more than trivial. Of these there are 3 companies (including mine) that dominate search rankings (98% of 1-3 positions of the keywords we target are held by one of these 3).
Page and Domain authorities are in the low thirties and many product pages have a PA of 1. Life to a large extent consists in identifying new non obvious keywords for link bait articles that then drive traffic to product pages, and also in taking existing keywords and breaking them apart into more exact matches.
-
Hi Alex - I actually filmed a whiteboard friday about this today! In the next few weeks, you should see it go to the main blog (and I cited you in there - hope that's OK)
-
Alex,
It is possible to have good on-page SEO, meaning that the site is crawalable, copy aligns with meta data, internal linking and navigation are worded correctly, and keyword research was done appropriately. However if the keywords you've chosen to target were also targeted by competitors with sites/pages that have have back links pointing at them, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to compete against them without sufficient back links of your own. It boils down to the fact that links are an important ranking factor and most of the time (unless you target super-uncompetitive keywords) you need them to be competitive.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
SEO value of affiliate external links
There are websites that have linked to my site. Whenever I hover over link I see my direct website URL and I am not seeing "no follow" when viewing source code so I assume these are passing link juice. However when I click on link it directs briefly to shareasale (affiliate account) in web address bar, but then quickly directs back to my website URL as directed. I was curious if these good links I am acquiring truly pass juice or since they briefly pass through an affiliate site if that cancels or dilutes the link juice. Also I am noticing when inspecting element that after the HREF it says class="external-link" I am just not sure if my link building efforts are being ruined by having an affiliate account running.I did not tell them I had one. I guess they are searching to see that I have one and trying to make a few extra commission dollars.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nchachula0 -
Medical / Health Content Authority - Content Mix Question
Greetings, I have an interesting challenge for you. Well, I suppose "interesting" is an understatement, but here goes. Our company is a women's health site. However, over the years our content mix has grown to nearly 50/50 between unique health / medical content and general lifestyle/DIY/well being content (non-health). Basically, there is a "great divide" between health and non-health content. As you can imagine, this has put a serious damper on gaining ground with our medical / health organic traffic. It's my understanding that Google does not see us as an authority site with regard to medical / health content since we "have two faces" in the eyes of Google. My recommendation is to create a new domain and separate the content entirely so that one domain is focused exclusively on health / medical while the other focuses on general lifestyle/DIY/well being. Because health / medical pages undergo an additional level of scrutiny per Google - YMYL pages - it seems to me the only way to make serious ground in this hyper-competitive vertical is to be laser targeted with our health/medical content. I see no other way. Am I thinking clearly here, or have I totally gone insane? Thanks in advance for any reply. Kind regards, Eric
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_Lifescript0 -
We are moving one website to a different domain and would like to know what is the best way to do it without hurting SEO
The website we want to move, let's say www.olddomain.com has a low quality back links profile, in fact it received a manual notification from google of unnatural links detected; but the home page has a PR 3. We want to move it to a different domain let's say www.newdomain.com. We would like to know if it's better to do a 301 redirect to the new domain, in order to transfer the link juice or if it would be better to do a 302, taking into account that this redirect won't pass any link juice, so it would be like start from scratch with this new domain. Thanks for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DoitWiser0 -
My site links have gone from a mega site links to several small links under my SERP results in Google. Any ideas why?
A site I have currently had the mega site links on the SERP results. Recently they have updated the mega links to the smaller 4 inline links under my SERP result. Any idea what happened or how do I correct this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | POSSIBLE0 -
Can I reduce number of on page links by just adding "no follow" tags to duplicate links
Our site works on templates and we essentially have a link pointing to the same place 3 times on most pages. The links are images not text. We are over 100 links on our on page attributes, and ranking fairly well for key SERPS our core pages are optimized for. I am thinking I should engage in some on-page link juice sculpting and add some "no follow" tags to 2 of the 3 repeated links. Although that being said the Moz's on page optimizer is not saying I have link cannibalization. Any thoughts guys? Hope this scenario makes sense.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robertrRSwalters0 -
Solving Keyword Cannibalisation WITHOUT exact match internal links
Hi guys, I have an ecommerce client I'm working with (they are a tour operator). The client has multiple variations of very very similar tours which has created a keyword cannibalisation issue. I've read this blog from Rand on the issue, and I understand that I need to use internal links to show the bots which page I want to rank for which term. Problem is, I cant use exact match anchor text as it wouldn't adequately describe the tour from a user's perspective. eg I want a single page to rank for 'Los Angeles Tour' however, because the tour also takes in san francisco, I cant use the exact match anchor text 'Los Angeles Tour' because it doesn't give users a realistic indication of the page that they are going to. My solution... Is to use the internal linking structure eg 'San Francisco & Los Angeles Tour', This has the keyword phrase I want to optimise for within the anchor text. Does this have the same effect as using the exact match anchor text? I cant really see any other solution, so I'm guessing that s the right course of action Your thoughts would be much appreciated
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jamesjackson0 -
Image Links Vs. Text Links, Questions About PR & Anchor Text Value
I am searching for testing results to find out the value of text links versus image links with alt text. Do any of you have testing results that can answer or discuss these questions? If 2 separate pages on the same domain were to have the same Page Authority, same amount of internal and external links and virtually carry the same strength and the location of the image or text link is in the same spot on both pages, in the middle of the body within paragraphs. Would an image link with alt text pass the same amount of Page Authority and PR as a text link? Would an image link with alt text pass the same amount of textual value as a text link? For example, if the alt text on the image on one page said "nike shoes" and the text link on the other page said "nike shoes" would both pass the same value to drive up the rankings of the page for "nike shoes"? Would a link wrapped around an image and text phrase be better than creating 2 links, one around the image and one around the text pointing to the same page? The following questions have to do with when you have an image and text link on a page right next to each other, like when you link a compelling graphic image to a category page and then list a text link underneath it to pass text link value to the linked-to page. If the image link displays before the text link pointing to a page, would first link priority use the alt text and not even apply the anchor text phrase to the linked page? Would it be best to link the image and text phrase together pointing to the product page to decrease the link count on the page, thus allowing for more page rank and page authority to pass to other pages that are being linked to on the page? And would this also pass anchor text value to the link-to page since the link would include an image and text? I know that the questions sound a bit repetitive, so please let me know if you need any further clarification. I'd like to solve these to further look into ways to improve some user experience aspects while optimizing the link strength on each page at the same time. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | abernhardt
Andrew0 -
Link Age as SEO factor?
Hi Guys
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VividLime
I have a client who ranks well within a competitive sector of the travel industry. They are planning CMS move which will involve changing from .cfm to .aspx We will be doing the standard redirects etc However Matt's statement here on 301 redirects got me thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5UL3lzBOA&t=0m24s He says that basically you loose a bit of page rank when you do a 301 redirect. Now, we will be potentially redirecting 1000s of links and my thinking is 'a lot of a little, adds up to a lot' In other words, 1000s of redirects may have a big enough impact to loose some rankings in a very competitive and aggressive space. So recommended that we contact the sites who has the link highest value and ask them to manually change the links from cfm to aspx. This will then mean that there are no loss value as with a 301 redirect. -But now I have another dilemma which I'm unsure about. So the main question:
Is link age factor in rankings ? If I update any links, this will make said link new to Google, so if link age is a factor, would this also lessen the value passed initially?0