Is link Bulding Gone ?

On Feb 16 2015 "Google's webmaster trends analyst, John Mueller, recommends you do not focus on link building and if you do, it may lead to more harm for your web site than anything good."

Now, Is link building gone ? or what type of strategy we follow to get a website rank ?

 

I dont think so its still work its automatic think once you done your list building you website gonna rank auto thats what i think

 

First of all you are check your web site webmaster tools main important purpose visitors and CPC very important so that is without link building not traffic increase but your content is very important minimum link submission.

 

The KEY word here is "focus". Do not focus on them rather focus on your visitors and what they want. Let the links come naturally

 

In my own opinion it is not gone since a lot still use it for their website. Maybe Mr. John Mueller suggests that website owners only use quality content so natural links flows.

 

I believe the suggestion has always been that we focus on content rather than links, but that doesn't mean that back-links are unimportant. If I remember correctly, Google tried removing back-links from the equation once and the results were horrible. If you focus on quality content, you will receive some natural back-links, but I doubt that this will be quick enough for most of us, so there will be some attention given to back-links. However, back-links should appear natural, diverse, and mostly from pages relevant to the content of your site.

Personally, I wish that Google would concentrate more on returning relevant results in response to queries than in micromanaging everything that webmasters do with their websites, but I suppose that's another matter.

One question may be somewhat relevant, however. Google tells us that links should be natural, yet what in the hell is natural about a "nofollow" link? If not for Google, why would anyone use a "nofollow" tag. Tagging a link as "nofollow" is the opposite of natural.

 

Link building is not dead but it has been advanced than before. According to Matt Cutts Google search still heavily depends on links to rank results. Although high authority back-links really do make a great impact to your rankings.

 

What Google did was kill off link building as a primary goal.
They first made directory links not count in PR.
What they are doing is telling you that the Page Rank Game is over.

I for one think that link building still is of value but you have to be conservative.
Submitting your site to 1000 directories is a waste of time.

Consider only submitting to a short list and only choose the oldest respected directories.
Related website links are still of high value.
If you sell Pizza then a link from a Pizza Oven company is of very high value.

The only problem I see with this change that Google made is that you have to be well known to Rank with Google.
Or have someone well known link to you which is not easy unless you have a rich uncle.
Google will give you a page one keyword that isn't worth a plum nickel but you will not get anywhere near that high priced keyword for free unless your already a super star.

You see if you get there free the guys that are paying will complain.
Who will you listen to?
The guy you gave a free hot dog or the guy that paid for the hot dog.

This latest move from Google is a SEO company killer as it took away from these SEO companies the mass Link building game.

Vincent G.

 

Things haven't changed that much for those who are offering quality content on their site. Although good sites sometimes get caught up in the crossfire, for the most part the sites that have been adversely affected by changes that Google has made to its algorithm have been those who have been trying to rank well despite the fact that their site content is lacking. Google would like us to just sit back and wait for people to link to our sites naturally, while at the same time making people afraid to provide links to sites that don't already have authority. Yes, if followed, this model will indeed favor the rich and the well connected. While they won't say so, Google really wants us to pay for traffic, and to be the recipient of this revenue.

Keeping in mind that Google is attempting to establish its algorithm to favor what they would term natural linking, unless you're happy to simply sit around paying your hosting fees, waiting for the Google gods to shine upon you, we have to do the best we can to establish something that Google's automated processes might view as a natural, diverse and relevant link profile. It's not natural, of course, because nothing could be more unnatural than a "nofollow" link, but we need to be proactive, seeking links that might appear natural to a computer program, and if we are fortunate enough to obtain a few links that are actually natural, so much the better.

Back when people linked to other sites simply because they were good, or because they offered information that their own readers might be interested in, think about how they might link to these sites. The answer is that they would link to them in a variety of ways, which may include the actual title of the site, the URL, and key phrases when the link was in reference to a specific page or topic found on the site, and internal pages were frequently linked to, sometimes identified by the page name, but they might also use anchor text such as "click here," "this page," or other words. Less often, links might come from images.

Link diversity refers both to having links from a variety of sites, which may include regular static web pages, blogs, forum threads, directories, or even blog comments, and to the quality of the linking site. Although not all of these will have equal value, they are all worthwhile for link diversity. Even "nofollow" links are important for link diversity and, although nothing could be less natural than a "nofollow" link, Google believes otherwise. I wouldn't pay for a "nofollow" link, but neither would I scorn one. Don't forget also that, while forum posts and signatures, as well as blog comments, are generally tagged as "nofollow," real people will click on them, giving you some targeted traffic, or at least they will if you're saying something interesting and not spamming the forum or blog. Link diversity may also include quality, as not every link has to be from a high quality site. While I'd stay away from absolute junk when it comes to linking, there is no harm in getting a link from any site that isn't junk.

Lastly, relevancy is important. Having a link to your site from a subpage of a site that is relevant to the topic of your site will do more for you than having a link from the home page of the same site. This is true of directories as well. In the past, a lot of people would seek to have their sites listed as high up in the directory as possible, on pages that were more apt to have PageRank, rather than in more relevant, but deeper subcategories. That was never the right thing to do, and well organized directories didn't allow it, but you'll score more points with Google today if you go for the most appropriate category.

Directories are simply websites, and Google doesn't hate directories any more than it does any other type of website. The difference now is that there was a time when directories were given some sort of special dispensation, and that is no longer the case. Well organized and maintained directories are as useful as they ever were, as far as links are concerned, but look for a subcategory that relates to the topic of your site, and don't bother with the many junk directories that are out there.

I have more than fifty active domains, and others in various stages of completion, and I haven't seen a significant difference in what it takes to rank in the SERPs, but then I have never played games, trying to rank a site devoid of content as if it were worth going to. Sure, Google is more likely to catch you today if you're playing games but if you're not playing games, things haven't changed that much.

 

link building is still work.. but dont spaming. Make backlink naturally.
choose backlink of same niche.

 

We all stopped building links and got full time jobs... I'm sure you can rank for anything now as you're the only one left LOL

 

Link building is always evolving and uses different platforms to reach targeted audience but not with low quality sites that intends to manipulate rankings.

What do you mean by "make backlink naturally?"

 

No, we need to do some good linkbuilding strategies, doing Directories and bookmarking on low quality sites is waste of time.
Nowadays, online marketers do more stress on SMO and Email Marketing.

 

Link building is not gone.. google want us to think that way, because new algorithms have many bugs.. and you see artifacts like spammy sites in top3. Another site, with small percentage of spammy links and direct visitors in top 10.

 

I don't think link building strategy is gone. It's still working.

 

there was only one problem with link building and it was that there were link brokers all over the place who were just creating sites on expired domains without any real value.
they would sale links/posts for nothing on those sites and after few month those sites were worthless .....

today link building can be done , just differently.

 

Google also do link building for other website. I think link building is not gone.

 

I seriously doubt link building will be gone anytime soon. True, it may have less effect due to improved algorythms and so on but search engines will always respect backlinks as an indicator of authority. They would be stupid not to do so.

On a side note, as others have suggested, as a website owner link building should not be your top priority. The old tactics are mostly outdated (link blasting, link wheels, mass social profile backlinks). You need to do it with a twist now and possibly - explore new mediums to get your product/website out there: YouTube videos, viral marketing, presentations, tutorials, etc. All those contribute to your website's ranking nowadays, alongside regular backlinks. They don't replace them completely though.