Quality links are definitely better than poor quality links. But poor quality links are better than no links. I remembered someone saying that for just one quality link, it will be like needing hundred's or poor links to just equal that one good link. But I guess all links do count for something, so the more of each the better.
Personally I try to avoid rubbish links now as much as possible. Look at this from Googles perspective, is it natural to have a site linked to by hundreds of low pagerank unrelated sites that each have hundreds of outbound links? if I was a Google engineer that is exactly the sort of thing I would be looking at to detect which sites were purchasing links.
What may be considered a quality link today, may be almost worthless(but not completly) tomorrow, a link from what is not even indexed today, may be the true quality link here in a few months. Get what you can on the inbound links, quality, quantity, the more the merrier, the more on topic the better.
actually the quality of backlink is better than quantity . I find some hight ranked sites with OnlY one backlink lol
Quality links will cost money or time, or both. They are definitely worth both to build some domain trust and be in the right neighborhood for your niche. Google is moving toward discounting off topic links and any "scheme" that builds links unnaturally. Not there yet for sure but think that will be the future. Reciprocal links in the wrong places can harm rankings, but lots of varied anchor text on quantity type links still provides better results than just concentrating on quality links period. Watch who you reciprocate with though.
What most people don't understand is that the "quality versus quantity" factor is strictly in comparison to the the other sites listed. If the KW phrase is for "slip and fall" lawyer sites, most of these sites have very few quality BLs. But you can't then conclude that quality doesn't matter. The ones on top just have better junk BLs than the others. It's all relative. Search the phrase "corporate law firm nyc" and you'll find that the top sites all have medium to high quality BLs. So, what you really need is simply more quality BLs than your competitors. /*tom*/ BTW: I don't think it hurts to have lots of junk links, it's just that you probably wont get to far if that's all you have.
well its pretty obvious that quality backlinks are btter then quantity backlinks and if you get high quantity of low quality backlinks it will not hurt though
Great post, this is a great point that is overlooked often. The problem with me occurs when I see sites coming up in top 10 positions for something like "personal injury lawyer", look at their backlinks and they have thousands of crap links that are nearly impossible to reproduce. At this point my only option is to get high quality links to compete, (plus a few hundred crap links if I can pull it).
For long term, you need thousands of backlinks (the quantity) to keep your site for the SERP. Don't put all eggs to a basket. If you buy a high PR of linking (the quality - say PR5 or more) in order to increase PR of your site. Yes, this way works. But if the site which linking to your site dropped to lower PR, this has influence to PR of your site... what will you do?
Or if they sell their domain and you one day find it parked... which I notice happening a lot lately.