4-5 New High Quality Links/Month, Enough to Increase Domain Authority?

[Kingalan1]

The link profile on our domain is poor and our domain authority is only 18. In April we migrated domains and our domain authority tumbled from 24 to 8 and as of August had recovered to 18.

Since August we have engaged in a link building campaign. We are getting 4-5  new links per month. They are good quality. Can we expect to see see an increase in our domain authority? If so, when?

The domain is www.metro-manhattan.com. The new links to date are below:

<colgroup><col width="114"><col width="252"><col width="377"><col width="296"><col width="97"></colgroup>
| Status | Anchor text | Final URL | Terget URL | Live date |
|   |   |   |   |   |
| Done | office space for rent in Manhattan |   |   |   |
|   |   |   | /commercial-space/office-space | 9/20/2018 |
| Done | medical office for rent |   | /commercial-space/medical-space | 9/21/2018 |
| Done | office space for rent in Manhattan |   | /commercial-space/office-space | 9/23/2018 |
| Done | office space for rent in NYC |   | /commercial-space/medical-space | 9/24/2018 |
| Skipped |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   | /commercial-space/medical-space | 10/8/2018 |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |

[Awais12525]

I have a simple question to the experts:

If we go with 301 Redirect < links from Forbes, Bloomberg& other big sites > can improve DA?

[effectdigital]

Hey Alan!

So let me break down and answer your questions and points you have raised:

**1.) My SEO provider has assured me the links are of high quality so I am somewhat surprised. But thanks for the evaluation. **

So I tend to really play it safe with backlinks. I wouldn't necessarily say it's an awful link, in fact it's 'potentially' a decent link, but I'm not 'certain' of that fact. To feel certain, I evaluate a myriad of factors and if enough of them line up for me to feel confident, that's what I consider to be a worthwhile link. At Effect Digital we operate a data-driven model and instead of just using one tool in isolation, we aggregate stats and metrics across the board. The main concern I had was how recently the site's organic traffic had started to 'bloom'. I prefer it if a domain demonstrates more solid longevity of achieved results. Maybe it's a new wonder-site, maybe that link will be valued for a long time. But at a top-line glance, the growth looks mental! It raises some questions (at least for me)

2.) Note that I am a real estate broker not an SEO specialists. What sources are available for me to I safely purchase high quality links (including content for those links)? You are saying the "Blogfrog" link is worth $80. Note that I am getting the content for the link and the link itself. What can I expect for $250.00?

I think most people who ask questions on here are in the same boat as you. They know Moz's great and deserved reputation for internet marketing videos, white-papers and analysis tools. Moz is kind of an entry-point into what we do, so it makes sense that the  Q&A section attracts non-experts. We know that and we try to help out!

The important thing is to engage more with what's called 'Digital PR' services and less with 'link building'. The term 'link building' alludes to the practice of SEOs and techy people, who often have no digital PR experience, producing quantities of links to raise search engine rankings. It used to be very effective, but obviously Google want to rank the best, most popular sites (not the sites which SEOs have decided to build the most links on). As you can see there's a conflict of interests. This is infuriating as PageRank is still a huge ranking factor and it necessarily is true that good links still lead to higher rankings. It's better to consider what you'd want from a link if SEO didn't exist (you'd want to spread the word about the USPs of your service, you'd want to instil trust through editorial content rather than ads, you'd want to get referral traffic). It's quite difficult to get links to perform from a referral perspective these days, but even a few visits shows a link might be worth having

My figure of $80 is what I'd 'certainly' be happy to pay for the link. As I have said I really play it safe in this area, it just didn't align enough positive metrics across the board for me to say, yeah I'd certainly go over the $100 line. Maybe it is worth more, but the jigsaw is missing some pieces (IMO) so I'd look again or ask for another domain choice

Because the industry has no entry requirements, it takes and insider's perspective to manage these things. If you're asking where you could safely ascertain decent, editorial links from on a regular basis with no funny business, I'd say there isn't anywhere. Even if you find a great Digital PR firm, there are different teams and people within that company. Some will be great, others will try and kit their own internal KPIs above yours. Finding a single company which never, ever wavers in terms of business ethics is nigh-impossible. This isn't just true in our industry though (I am sure that in real-estate, you have noticed there are also sharks in the water there too)

You need someone on your side to manage this kind of stuff, who knows what they're actually doing.

Think about it - if there were one safe supplier, everyone would use them, they would determine Google's organic results (instead of Google making that determination) and they would end up owning Google. Since that's clearly a ridiculous notion, you have to recognise that the complexity of this competitive environment necessitates constant analysis and re-evaluation. Unless you're capable of performing those evaluations, you can never be safe!

I suspect my existing SEO provider is purchasing the links and marking them up (he has to make a living which I understand). I did request information on where the links were sourced. The SEO was guarded (something about a proprietary relationship with his publishers)  perhaps he thought I might circumvent him. My concern is that he has incentive to mark up the links on order to maximize profit. What is a fair arrangement that would align our interests?

This is not necessarily malpractice. We would have to do exactly the same thing, otherwise the work would not create profit. If too much of our businesses work is 'not for profit', we become some kind of internet marketing charity. We have skills, knowledge and innovations. We deserve to see our living standards increased when we share that stuff.

When you get a plumber over, he'll charge more than just the costs of the replacement pipes. He has to live too (like you rightly say). Link building and internal link structure, is kind of like the plumbing of the internet. People are doing something you don't have the confidence to do or analyse the quality of, so you have to go off recommendations. That makes perfect sense!

It's difficult to work out a perfect way to align your interests. You just have to evaluate whom you think gives you the best quality based on the information which they back their assertions with. You have to look at the results and the produced links and content and say, hmm I think this is worth what I am paying for it or actually I don't think this is sustainable

Here is the common SEO analyst's dilemma. We want to be transparent and let people know, exactly where things are coming from. Often when we supply this information, we get cut out of the picture and lose any potential revenue or profit. In a perfect world that would actually be fine because, a direct connection between client and supplier should be cheaper and we have no God-given right to cut people off from that.

That being said; when we are working for our clients we're always pushing the content suppliers and editors for better work for our clients. We analyse what they do. We turn some domains down and ask for another one at the same price. We never get it perfect, but without us operating on your behalf - these safe-guards aren't in place. What you'll usually end up with is a direct connection and then after a few months, you'll notice a drop in service standards from the supplier. In the end - you get what you pay for! That's my professional and personal opinion after being in this industry around 8 years now

3.) The SEO was highly recommended to me and I appreciate the efforts he has made. Still I don't like an incentive to exist to buy a "C+, B-" link for $80 and sell it to me for much more. Ethically and professionally may I ask him how much he paid and exactly where these links were acquired.

It's difficult to manage these feelings and the truth is there's no real way to know whether he's being ethical or whether he's not. Just remember that a plumber often sells you C+ / B- plumbing equipment at an A-grade price-tag, because you're also paying for the labour. Remember you're paying for more than just the end result here, as I have outlined - so you're not necessarily being ripped off. You can ask, but if he's unethical then you may not get a true answer. In a way, maybe just respecting the guy is the best way forwards

I know that I haven't shown the same faith in this link he has built as you initially felt. Truth be told I'd love to have a spin and win some business from you, but at the same time I recognise that guy 'could' genuinely be doing his best. I don't know his profit margins. I like to see A-grade backlinks in a backlink profile, but I'm not going to be an A-hole :')

**4.) Could I research common high quality links to my competitors and ask him to request links from those sites? **

This is the difference between digital PR / outreach and SEO link building. He probably has his link networks and can't move much from them. An SEO often doesn't posses the 'gift of the gab' and networking abilities of a standard or digital PR person. If you force him down this road, you'll likely see less coming back than you're getting now

People who have lived a PR-life, have connections. They can get in contact with people at high levels from A-grade publications. You can't expect those contacts (the people you want to reach) to respond the same way to a random web-analyst. You can't expect a web-analyst, in addition to knowing everything he knows in terms of evaluating web-traffic trends and data - to also be a great PR guy. It's a personality, a trait, an art-style

If you want you can do what you have suggested, but you are likely to reach the conclusion that competitors are getting many links from their industry suppliers (maybe office equipment providers) and from award organisations. Suddenly it will be you, yourself (the business owner) doing the link building. It will be about leveraging your businesses direct connections for links, but those places will (likely) only respond to requests from you directly. I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing this (in fact it's a great idea!) but passing it off to someone else it not really massively viable

On the off-chance that you find your competitor's have placements on other blogs and news networks (or online magazines), they're probably a part of the link network which your competitor's SEO is leveraging. That doesn't mean you can't work with those publications, but it makes the entry-point narrower. It means you will have to give your SEO some A-grade business-level content for him to pitch to the editor of the online publication. Maybe some unique insights from anonymised customer data, tailored to be interesting to their custom audience. You'll (again) need some input

It doesn't have to soak up crazy amounts of your time. If it were me operating in that way, each month I'd want a call with you and we would do a quick brain-storm. You would then send me some (anonymised, GDPR friendly) business data, or get me interviews with some of your higher-level employees and we'd turn that 'real stuff' into actual content people would like to read. Doing top ten posts and bland advertorials masquerading as editorials is now outmoded. If we bashed our heads together, there MUST be some unique and interesting insights from your business to share with the world?

**5.) Alternatively, would it make more sense to invest my budget to re-write the content on my site? If this was done in an engaging way would incoming links develop naturally? For instance would publishing a blog post once or twice a week increase links? Or will I no matter what need to invest in link buildings. **

It still needs a kick-off for awareness. The best most incredible piece of content is a colossal waste of money of no one ever reads it. SEO is about balancing spinning plates and not letting one drop. It's a real challenge. In a way, nothing is critical - but by the same token, if everything is weighted relatively equally, the less you decide to do the more you suffer. I certainly think that investing in content production is a crucial part of ascertaining high quality links. But what makes great content? Great content informs, educates or entertains.

That's great but in the web world, unless it's also 'shareable' (the kind of content which compels people to share it) then all of a sudden it falls flat. You have to have stones and get involved in real topics. Maybe invest in charity events, speak about those. How can you make your business connect with the things that the people in your audience care about? It's not easy, that's why you need a good sounding board

6.) Assuming I continue developing 4-5 links like the ones you have seen, will it be enough to improve ranking on Google? Will metrics such as MOZ Domain Authority start to improve? If that is not enough to move the needle I either need to invest more or stop.

I actually think it will help. Like I say it's not an awful link, it just gives me some worry-signs about its longevity. What you don't want is to meet your internal KPIs in the short term, and then lose them, and then spend again to get back to the first rung on the ladder over and over. This link we have looked at, could move you forwards properly. But I just don't feel certain... That does concern me

I would say that your main error has been to look at link building as a siloed, isolated activity. It needs more of a big idea behind it. If you're just happy with moderate gains for moderate expenditure with a low to moderate risk of losing that progress in 1-2 years and having to think again, fine. Maybe that suits your business growth plan.

If you want something with a bit more razzle-dazzle that will stand the test of time, it may involve having a great idea, connecting with something people care about (like a charity), building and designing a custom micro-site that people find neat and shareable. Then it's a case of using Digital PR (not 'link building') to promote that activity. This involves heavy, heavy expenditure - but there will be shades of gray in-between right? There will be stuff we can do between what you are doing now, and that thermonuclear option which may not currently be business-viable

Let's find those things

7.) How can I as a consumer ensure that I am purchasing decent quality links? I am willing to pay, but for all the time, effort and knowledge it would take to analyze links, it gets very tricky. I am in the real estate business not the link creation building business. At the same time I don't want to pay 4x for something worth x. Any suggestions?

This is just unfortunately, a necessarry evil.  Certainty requires analysis which is a labour cost. Maybe the analysis would even out-weigh the excess expenditure in terms of paying for the links (that is a worry, and a consideration).

Again, there must be ways for smart people to work together and add value. Maybe everything can't be full depth. Maybe you keep your current link supplier and pay someone else to analyse a portion (not all of) their produced links on a regular basis, thus escaping supplier-bias. If it's understood that the 3rd party will only ever be allowed to undertake analysis roles, then they have no compulsion to try and win the production side of the business (thus alleviating a slow drift towards unfair and unfavourable reviews). I can't think that there would be literally no way to work out a situation that pays for itself

Remember - you have said you are already seeing results. Are they enough for you?

8.) FYI... I just notice that from the 8 links created since September 20th, I have not yet received a single click of referral  traffic per Google Analytics. Should I be concerned, does this indicate these links are of marginal benefit? But I will say that my ranking on certain keywords has increased since these links have been activated.

If you're seeing increased rankings that's good, but you need to keep an eagle-eye on how stable they remain. If you end up just doing 'kick-ups' then obviously, it's not worth it. You want the majority of your progress to lock-in, so you can keep growing and making more progress

I like to see referral traffic through links. Even 2-3 visits, fine - just makes me feel safe. If you get nothing, it usually means the link was only thematically relevant and not user-relevant (as I discussed in my original answer to the main question). It's not an awful link, don't panic. On the other hand, do complete your due diligence and oversight. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, have someone else do it each month for you. You might also like line of sight on the links that are being created organically, not just your paid placements

[Kingalan1]

Hi Effect Data:

Thanks so much for the detailed analysis!!

My SEO provider has assured me the links are of high quality so I am somewhat surprised. But thanks for the evaluation.

Note that I am a real estate broker not an SEO specialists. What sources are available for me to I safely purchase high quality links (including content for those links)? You are saying the "Blogfrog" link is worth $80. Note that I am getting the content for the link and the link itself. What can I expect for $250.00? I suspect my existing SEO provider is purchasing the links and marking them up (he has to make a living which I understand). I did request information on where the links were sourced. The SEO was guarded (something about a proprietary relationship with his publishers)  perhaps he thought I might circumvent him. My concern is that he has incentive to mark up the links on order to maximize profit. What is a fair arrangement that would align our interests? The SEO was highly recommended to me and I appreciate the efforts he has made. Still I don't like an incentive to exist to buy a "C+, B-" link for $80 and sell it to me for much more. Ethically and professionally may I ask him how much he paid and exactly where these links were acquired.

Could I research common high quality links to my competitors and ask him to request links from those sites?

Alternatively, would it make more sense to invest my budget to re-write the content on my site? If this was done in an engaging way would incoming links develop naturally? For instance would publishing a blog post once or twice a week increase links? Or will I no matter what need to invest in link buildings.

Assuming I continue developing 4-5 links like the ones you have seen, will it be enough to improve ranking on Google? Will metrics such as MOZ Domain Authority start to improve? If that is not enough to move the needle I either need to invest more or stop.

How can I as a consumer ensure that I am purchasing decent quality links? I am willing to pay, but for all the time, effort and knowledge it would take to analyze links, it gets very tricky. I am in the real estate business not the link creation building business. At the same time I don't want to pay 4x for something worth x. Any suggestions?

FYI... I just notice that from the 8 links created since September 20th, I have not yet received a single click of referral  traffic per Google Analytics. Should I be concerned, does this indicate these links are of marginal benefit? But I will say that my ranking on certain keywords has increased since these links have been activated.

Thanks, 
Alan

[effectdigital]

First of all you are right to seek a few high quality links per month, over hundreds of article-wheel submissions or 'ten-a-penny' directory site links. But did you know, there are other things which impact the importance of a link in Google's eyes? Some of those factors are technical, some are network based and some are subjective.

1.) Link Relevance: I don't simply mean whether the page supplying the link and the page receiving the link are thematically related. Linguistic gymnastics, isn't what Google are looking for! Of course a link should be 'thematically' relevant, but relevance doesn't end there. You also have to question - "why would it be relevant for an end-user of the link supplying site, to click on that hyperlink and come to my site? Will they care about the link, will it be useful to them?". If you have done something like, slap a 'car-related' link on a car manufacturers site to your (hypothetical) car insurance company, chances are - most of the people interested in cars produced by that manufacturer already have insurance **and **they're not currently on the market. As such, although the link would be 'thematically' relevant, it would be use-case irrelevant. If you're not looking to this deeper level of hyperlink relevance, your links probably won't do much

2.) Links that Carry Real Traffic: If no one uses your link it's a good sign to Google that you have really fudged up #1 on this list. I am pretty sure that Google buy bulk, anonymised traffic data from leading ISPs (Internet Service Providers) at least in the UK / USA. They can use their crawling technology and vast index of the web, alongside data sold by ISPs to get a pretty good idea (or 'overlay') of which links carry actual, factual traffic (and which don't). If your link is deemed to be useless, it likely won't carry much weight at all - even if the site supplying the link is decent

3.) The Editorial / Advertorial Split: Only 'editorial' links from within un-biased, editorial content should carry SEO-weighting. Banner ads, text links from within sponsored (paid-for) posts (also known as advertorials) don't count (at all) if Google becomes aware of the nature of the hyperlink. As such, you need to be very careful how you deploy as you can spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds (or dollars), seeing no return in SEO or referral traffic terms whatsoever. Remember: keep your work editorial in nature. Maybe pay an editor to review a piece of content you wish to place, but pay for their time - not for a certain link placement. This can be hard to get your head around, but research the nature of editorial and advertorial links / content. Pursue editorial stuff (at least for SEO). No ifs, no buts - no trying to get clever, just do the business

4.) Technical Link Features: One way in which an advertorial link could be sign-posted is by adding "no-follow" tags to the hyperlink in the coding. It's a badly named tag, it does not stop Google (or discourage Google) from following a hyperlink to reach its destination. It does not stop users from clicking on and following a hyperlink. What it actually does is stop SEO authority from flowing through the link! To stop editors abusing this to insulate their own SEO authority in an old (and even then, unconvincing) tactic known as PageRank Sculpting, the authority is still lost from the site which links 'out'. It is just vented into cyberspace, never connecting with or landing on the site which is supposed to be receiving the link. The only point of using a no-follow tag, is to signal to Google that a link was probably paid for and thus letting them know not to transfer any SEO authority across. In return, the link-supplier will not be penalised for selling their own site's SEO authority to manipulate Google's search engine results!

5.) Shadier Technical Link Features: As well as using the no-follow tag, which is much easier to spot (and which all SEOs now know to look for!) - some link-sellers have gotten smarter. They will do stuff like, allow your link to be followed but, also put a Meta no-index tag on the post supplying the link (so Google never sees it at all). Some link suppliers also use robots.txt very creatively for the same reason, to make you think you got a great link when really Google will never see it (which protects them and their own domain authority). **WATCH **your back!

6.) Link / Content Temporal Alignment: Just so you know, if you're paying to alter pre-existing content and embed links in it, Google can spot that a mile off any you likely won't see anything for it. Google want to see you 'really do something', not just tweak old stuff and add no value to the web

The final thing I'll note here is that "Domain Authority" is a metric created by Moz which is meant to mimic the importance of Google's old PageRank metric / algorithm (which is still at work, yet has become invisible to the public!)

Google do not check what a site's Domain Authority is on Moz and then act in accordance with that. So remember that DA (along with PA / Page Authority) is an indicator only, not something which Google looks at directly or acts upon... That honour still sits with PageRank. Yes, the API calls and toolbars which told you what the (simplified) PageRank of a given URL were, are gone. No - PageRank itself, as a ranking facet - is not gone (in fact it's very much alive and at work!)

I'll look at one of your links in detail and do some analysis on it, and then I'll tell you what I would have paid for it including content creation!

Let's look at this one:

http://www.theblogfrog.com/5-options-for-renting-a-startup-office-space/ | office space for rent in Manhattan

Domain Level Moz Metrics:

Domain Authority: 58

Linking Domains (more important than total backlinks): 5,600+

Total Inbound Links: 928,700

Calculated Domain / Links Average: On 'average' each site in their backlink profile would be linking 160+ times, that's a negative signal as backlink profiles should be diverse (not hundreds and hundreds of links from the same site(s)

Ranking Keywords: 464 - with hundreds of thousands of links you'd expect way more. There's a suspicious disparity here

Domain Level Ahrefs Metrics:

Homepage URL Rating: 15 (low)

Domain Rating: 55 (similar to Moz's DA score)

Linking Domains: 5,100+

Total Inbound Links: 2,180,000+ (wow! Way too many when compared to a measly 5k linking domains - Ahrefs has a more expansive back-link index than Moz for some areas of the web... so this figure is more likely to be more accurate in this scenario)

Ranking Keywords: 2,500+ (makes more sense)

Traffic Insights from Ahrefs SEO Traffic Chart: I really wish you could see this! You can if you follow thi**s link to an image I've uploaded for you: **https://d.pr/i/CEVUgV.png - not doing too badly right? Between 1,500 and 2,000 hits from SEO per day. But is it sustainable!? This site appeared out of nowhere in January. I've already highlighted some suspicious backlink disparities, so who knows if their authority will remain high. With such a difference between their total backlinks and linking domain stats, I suspect that if I looked deeper I'd find some shady stuff in there. Stuff that would show that in 6 months, these guys could be discarding this domain. You need your links to last

Domain Level Majestic SEO Metrics:

Trust Flow: 17 (pretty low)

Citation Flow: 44

Linking Domains: 2,163 linking domains from Majestic's 'fresh' index. That's nearly half of the total found by the other two, just in the fresh segment. Possibly another signal of rampant, unsustainable growth...

SEMRush Domain Level Traffic Analysis:

Look at this image: https://d.pr/i/3P5D4S.png - it's not quite as forgiving as the SEO traffic estimates from Ahrefs, but it is narrowed to US traffic only and probably by this point, Ahrefs have a very nicely sized keyword index. Ahrefs is a bit more of a premium product, I expect their index-size reflects that. Again it shows that actually, this site is doing alright now. However, it was previously seeing much more SEO traffic (the SEMRush chart stretches back further in time). It worries me that something seemed to have previously nuked the domain and it's nowhere close to the performance levels it once had...

On-Page Link Factors

Your link shares the content with at least three other links. A couple are internal, one seems to be citing a study. Your link value will be divided a bit, but in actual fact this makes the link 'safer' and less obvious

Your link is only thematically relevant and doesn't seem that relevant for an end user to click on. Yeah the anchor text matches your site I guess, but why would I - a random Blog-Frog reader, care about it or want to click on it? There's no context, no explanation. I just wouldn't go for it

This probably means the link is not carrying any / much referral traffic (look in your GA to find out)

Your link uses EMA (Exact-Match Anchor Text, Google it). This is old-school SEO. Yes, EMA is the most powerful anchor text for altering your search rankings. Do you think Google don't know that, though? It just looks very obvious to me. Maybe use more natural anchor text. I'm not saying never include keywords, just don't limit the anchor text to 'exactly' the key-phrase you are trying to optimise for. It'll stick out like a sore thumb to Google Penguin

The link is not no-followed, that's probably good. The page which the link sits on is not Meta no-indexed (also good). Robots.txt is not being used in a shady way. Great!

I'm not ruling it out as I only have a very, very brief check but - it doesn't look as if it's been marked as sponsored. That's good! Editorial>advertorial (always remember)

Have I ever heard of this site? - no, and with these metrics I'd have expected to. That is slightly worrying

FINAL VERDICT

There are lots of small signals that this link isn't everything is says it is. There's nothing concrete though and many metrics are pretty strong. Technical features support the link, other than the use of EMA (exact-match anchor text) which may come back to bite you in the future.

I'd give this link a C+ / B. It's alright, I'd pay maybe $80 for it. It's certainly not a $250 - $1,000+ heavyweight contender

Analyse my process, apply it to all your other links. See how you feel about your own operations!