- Truth ? ''link building isn't considered a suitable way of promotion as per recent search engine updates''
-
I need SEO.
A SEO consultant said:
''link building isn't considered a suitable way of promotion as per recent search engine updates''
they mention:
''Therefore we would be undertaking a range
of promotional exercises such as blog postings, social book marking, press release, etc that are more effective for ensuring best
possible rankings for the website.''
Do you agree?
Thank you
-
This is a strange thing for an SEO company to say, because it's still widely accepted that good links pass PageRank / authority and add to the likelihood that a site will rank well for its chosen keywords. "Link building" itself might not be a term that fills Google with joy, but it's still a valuable way to improve a site's rankings and Google knows it. The truth lies somewhere in the middle if you want to stay white-hat: you need links, but you should acquire them in a way that does not constitute buying or being manipulative (again, if you want to stay to the letter of Google's law).
The activities they mention are fairly standard "link building" tactics though, and something like "social bookmarking" was a type of link building that lost popularity due to being ineffective nearly 10 years ago. I would have doubts about their SEO chops if they cite both link building as being out of bounds, and social bookmarking as being a good tactic!
-
I'd want a few more details. Most blog posts and press releases have links in them. Social bookmarking is all about links. Google has also gone against press releases just for links, as well as blog posts just for links.
-
I think it depends. Obviously having solid content is the best way to gain a natural following thus increase your ranking. It has been mentioned recently that small businesses should not look for un-natural web links and focus more on creating good content. The reasoning behind it is to eliminate any black-hat link techniques of the past once and for all. I don't buy into the idea that good solid links to good solid content won't help you. I think the future of search will probably be creating a natural mix of all of the above.
To answer your question, I agree and disagree. It's not like good links are going to hurt you. However, it should be more important to develop the content to get those links in a natural way.
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
-
Are We Doing Link Building Right? Do Certain Links Actually Matter?
I've been thinking about this as I go through my daily link building activities for clients. Do we really know as much as we hope/think we do about how Google values inbound links, which links actually matter, and how much these link signals play into rankings? For example, does Google REALLY value the fact that a business is paying to sponsor a local sports team, or to join a local chamber? For local businesses, link building is rather difficult because they don't necessarily have the resources or ability to implement ongoing Content Marketing initiatives to earn links naturally. How can we be sure that the things we recommend actually make a difference? I had my family real estate business featured in almost a dozen articles as expert sources, with links from authoritative sites like Realtor.com and others. Does Google distinguish between a profile link on a site like Realtor.com vs. being featured as an expert source on home page news? Just second guessing a lot of this today. Anyone can to share thoughts and insights?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
Monthly Refreshes Aren't Actually Needed, Right?
We get tons of emails from Network Solutions with the following text: To ensure that your website is easily found online it is important that you submit your website to the major search engines and internet directories, including: | Google™ Google Places™ Google Mobile™ Bing™ Yahoo!<sup>®</sup> Twitter<sup>®</sup> | Facebook<sup>®</sup> CitySearch<sup>®</sup> Foursquare™ Angie's List<sup>®</sup> GPS navigation MerchantCircle<sup>®</sup> | To do so, we recommend you go to each search engine and internet directories web page, locate the instructions and then complete a monthly refresh of your listing. If you would like us to complete this process for you please call us at... Everything I've ever read about modern SEO says this isn't necessary and it's just a solicitation to get people to pay them for something they don't even need. We update our social pages regularly and maintain listings on many citation sites using Moz Local (in addition to manually building citations). Can you guys confirm that this is just more spam from Network Solutions?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ScottImageWorks0 -
Are there any issues with search engines (other than Google/Bing) reading Protocol-Relative URLs?
Are there any issues with search engines (other than Google/Bing) reading Protocol-Relative URLs? Specifically with Baidu and Yandex?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WikiaSEO0 -
When you can't see the cache in search, is it about to be deindexed?
Here is my issue and I've asked a related question on this one. Here is the back story. Site owner had a web designer build a duplicate copy of their site on their own domain in a sub folder without noindexing. The original site tanked, the webdesigner site started outranking for the branded keywords. Then the site owner moved to a new designer who rebuilt the site. That web designer decided to build a dev site using the dotted quad version of the site. It was isolated but then he accidentally requested one image file from the dotted quad to the official site. So Google again indexed a mirror duplicate site (the second time in 7 months). Between that and the site having a number of low word count pages it has suffered and looked like it got hit again with Panda. So the developer 301 the version to the correct version. I was rechecking it this morning and the dotted quad version is still indexed, but it no longer lets me look at the cache version. Out of experience, is this just Google getting ready to drop it from the index?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BCutrer0 -
Scarce niche websites for link building
Hello! A small company from Mexico that offers cleaning services for home & businesses wants to rank on the first page of Google. The Good: Every month they give away stuff (discounts and/or a free service) and they also participate in campaigns that support non-profitable organizations & charity. So there is plenty of material for me to build some backlinks and to create some interesting content. Their competitors have 0 SEO. I have been doing my homework and none of their competitors websites that are ranking on the top 5 are doing any kind of SEO. But they have had their website for a long time and they probably have a decent amount of traffic per day. Open Site Explorer shows minimal to no websites pointing to them. Google Adwords has increased their sales. They are using virtually nothing as budget and it is helping, but they want organic SEO. The Bad: Blogs seem to be dead in Mexico. And that is one of my strongest ways to create backlinks. I usually get a blogger to write about the company I'm working for to create backlinks and works like a charm in countries were SEO is prehistoric. Usually it takes me very little effort to accomplish a website to rank very well in this kind of scenario, but I'm having trouble this time. The Something: I have been able to boost their rankings with basic SEO in a month but I'm stuck in page #2-5 on their most important keywords. The Ugly: I'm out of ideas. And their budget isn't good enough to apply paid strategies. Any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eblan0 -
Google Webmaster Now Shows YourMost Recent Links
I just saw this story today about a new Google Webmaster feature which lets you download a file of the most recent links. http://searchengineland.com/google-now-shows-you-your-most-recent-links-127903 I downloaded the file today and I already discovered a major site issue. Our site blog was completely duplicated on a secondary domain we own and Google was showing that site as recent links. I already emailed the dev team to fix this pronto. Anybody else using this new feature and perhaps can share if it helps you in any way.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw1 -
How to get the 'show map of' tag/link in Google search results
I have 2 clients that have apparently random examples of the 'show map of' link in Google search results. The maps/addresses are accurate and for airports. They are both aggregators, they service the airports e.g. lax airport shuttle (not actual example) BUT DO NOT have Google Place listings for these pages either manually OR auto populated from Google, DO NOT have the map or address info on the pages that are returned in the search results with the map link. Does anyone know how this is the case? Its great that this happens for them but id like to know how/why so I can replicate across all their appropriate pages. My understanding was that for this to happen you HAD to have Google Place pages for the appropriate pages (which they cant do as they are aggregators). Thanks in advance, Andy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AndyMacLean0 -
Robots.txt: Link Juice vs. Crawl Budget vs. Content 'Depth'
I run a quality vertical search engine. About 6 months ago we had a problem with our sitemaps, which resulted in most of our pages getting tossed out of Google's index. As part of the response, we put a bunch of robots.txt restrictions in place in our search results to prevent Google from crawling through pagination links and other parameter based variants of our results (sort order, etc). The idea was to 'preserve crawl budget' in order to speed the rate at which Google could get our millions of pages back in the index by focusing attention/resources on the right pages. The pages are back in the index now (and have been for a while), and the restrictions have stayed in place since that time. But, in doing a little SEOMoz reading this morning, I came to wonder whether that approach may now be harming us... http://www.seomoz.org/blog/restricting-robot-access-for-improved-seo
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kurus
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/serious-robotstxt-misuse-high-impact-solutions Specifically, I'm concerned that a) we're blocking the flow of link juice and that b) by preventing Google from crawling the full depth of our search results (i.e. pages >1), we may be making our site wrongfully look 'thin'. With respect to b), we've been hit by Panda and have been implementing plenty of changes to improve engagement, eliminate inadvertently low quality pages, etc, but we have yet to find 'the fix'... Thoughts? Kurus0