I just wanted to know the importance of link building and article posting in google latest algorithms is stop or what. Because I have seen my competitor site google backlink is just 65. Check the backlink of clickindia.com you will get only 65 backlinks in google and this sites almost comes in every keyword which is related with india. (eg. career courses india, packers movers india, animation in india) And I created 90 backlinks for my site and it comes only in 5-6 keywords. Clickindia.com not posting the articles as well and even not posting in social bookmarking sites. How can they comes in google without doing any seo work. And I posted almost 100 articles in top article directories and 4000 web directories but my site comes only in 5-6 keyword. How?
Ignore what you see with the links command in Google - clickindia.com has a strong backlink profile. Article writing and distribution still works but you will not be able to compete with clickindia.com just be distributing articles to article directories and doing social bookmarking. If you want to start competing with this site, check out their links in something like Yahoo Site Explorer and see if you can pick up the same quality of links.
Backlinks are just one part of an overall SEO strategy. If you are competing for keywords then that is the area that you need to focus on, look at how your competition is using the keywords in their titles, description and headings as well as how they feature in the main content of the page. Other factors such as the age of the domain, how long the domain is registered for, quality/uniqueness of content and targeting long tail keywords all play their part too. Everywhere I go on this forum all I ever see people talking about is backlinks, backlinks, backlinks and all other SEO factors seem to get ignored!
No matter what the OP does regarding on-page SEO, he will never compete with a site with a strong backlink profile. It's just a fact that backlinks are extremely important. On-page SEO is not to be ignored, but backlinks are considerably more important. That's why Adobe ranks #1 for the phrase "click here" - they didn't optimise their page for this phrase, it is present in lots of anchor text pointing to their site. Domain age and uniqueness of content have little bearing on a site's rankings. Quality content may attrack quality links, but quality content in and of itself will do nothing for you.
Google looks at the quality of the links and the uniqueness of articles or text on a page to determine serp.
What I'm saying is that the rest of a sites SEO strategy seems to get overlooked and people instantly think they haven't got enough backlinks. Yes Adobe do well for the keyword term "click here" for adode reader through targeted anchor text in their backlinks but also because that is a PR9 page from an established and trusted domain. The next result is for clickhere.com because they have targeted that keyword and through doing that they are returned higher than apple quicktime and windows media player at positions 3 and 4 even though these sites have many more backlinks and much higher PR than clickhere.com. When I talk about quality content I mean unique content that is rich in targeted keywords. This guy is wondering why he is not scoring so well for his keywords and instantly assumes that it is because he hasn't got enough backlinks when really he should be analysing and optimising his keyword strategy.
The reason why Adobe has a PR9 page and the reason why they are a trusted domain is because of the backlinks they have. With regards to clickhere.com, the vast majority of their backlinks contain the term "click here" plus it's an exact match domain name which will receive a natural boost for the term based on their domain name. I have a feeling that what you are saying is that you can outrank a site with less backlinks than them and this is true. This tends to happen when you have made a better effort to target your keywords through anchor text. But I still maintain that backlinks are a bigger ranking factor than content alone. Essentially what the OP needs to do is focus on longer tail keywords until his site has built up enough strength to tackle a stronger competitor for more competitive keywords. There's just no way you can target competitive keywords without strong backlinks.
Yeah we are on the same page there, I agree that backlinks are powerful and certainly necessary in highly competitive markets but any strategy that relies too heavily on just one aspect of SEO is severely flawed. A good strategy should include sourcing quality backlinks, keyword research and optimisation, on site SEO etc etc. I think it's a mistake to overlook these other aspects of SEO and instantly assume that more backlinks are needed when your keywords aren't performing as well as you hoped. Also a lot of people seem to overlook the importance of gaining backlinks from quality sources, I am really not convinced that a link from a forum profile, blog comment or article directory counts for much at all. When it comes to backlinks I believe you should be looking for quality and relevance over quantity.