SEO Tycoon

**Towhid** · 10-03-2009, 04:55 PM

I'm about to launch my website and have already set a routine for 2 hours a day trying to get as many back links to my site as possible. The question is, should I only get back links from similar sites or from as many as possible irregardless of what those sites are about?

Obviously I will be cautious of not getting back links from adult or otherwise problematic sites, I mean more in lines of say: my site is about pets - if I get back links from a site about iphones would that cause SEO problems?

**js112** · 10-04-2009, 02:45 AM

you can also get backlink from forum, bookmark, blog submission, relative website is better

**johnch** · 10-04-2009, 08:22 PM

From similar one is the best. Quality is better than quantity. It doesn't matter if you have a thousand backlinks if its not of quality links then its pretty much useless, plus your time doing that could have just been used for promoting your site =)

**thefandango** · 06:51 AM

Relevant links are apparently the best, however, I have seen little evidence that this is actually the case.

You have to ask yourself - what is relevant and how would Google tell if it was. This is a blog post I wrote on my company blog (I wont link to it here out of courtesy to the forum owners):

One question we are asked a lot, is should I only link to and request links from relevant sites.

Our answer is emphatically NO.

Of course people will say that non-relevant inbound links are a waste of time, mostly however those people are SEO’s who make a living from linkbuilding and who will happily take your money once you run out of idea’s to only otain relevant links. And Google will happily back them up as it creates a climate of fear which keeps people in line.

In a recent article by Eric Ward, a so called “link building authority”, he mentioned the distribution of the link building process as the following:

10% of the process is about marketing.
40% is about persistence.
20% is about relevance.
20% Is public relations
and the rest is common sense.

Matt Cutts, the high-profile Google engineer, described Eric Ward as “one that follows the most correct approach to link building.”

So there you have it. Relevancy makes up around 20% of the equation, straight from the horses mouth.

Still not convinced? Ok, ask yourself, if CNN.com releases a story that is linked back to thousands of times, how many of those links are from “relevant” sites. Does CNN get penalized?

How about if you run an outsource call centre, and your diverse portfolio of clients are linking back to you from their sites. Would you get a penalty for getting a link from the baby clothing company you take sales calls for?
Of course not!

Reciprocal links are
FAR more dangerous, even if they are “on topic”. Because not only can the other party pull the link at any time and get a free one way link from you, but you are also losing powerful PR “linkjuice” because it is flowing from your site. In addition Google does not like reciprocal linking because it shows that the link is not natural but arranged, so may devalue the link., and by doing a reciprocal link you are basically saying to Google “hey look we are linking to each other even though we know you hate links that are obviously arranged”.

As a final point, when setting up IBL Builder we did a test. We set up a small website and then built ONLY non-relevant links to it.
And guess what.

Within 3 months the site was on page one of Google for a search term with a monthly volume of 50,000 searches. So relevance is preferable, but if you believe the lies about ONLY building relevant one way links, you are only hurting yourself.

----------------------------

Finally, ask yourself this:

1. If non-relevant links were not worth building, why do so many sites rank well with what appears to be totally random links pointing at their sites (if you have ever done competitor investigation you will know what I mean).

2. If excessive non-relevant inbound links hurt your site, why is everyone not building links to the sites above them in the google SERP's?

**Earnest** · 10-05-2009, 08:26 AM

An across-the-board answer might be the famous "a link is a link is a link".

However, the best link (and the best anything that one would do) is one that makes sense. If you think the iPhone site might send traffic to your site, I don't see a problem with that.

**rubsync** · 10-06-2009, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnch

From similar one is the best. Quality is better than quantity.

I agree. Quality deals with relevancy. Get back links on relevant and DoFollow sites because Google gives more value on these kinds of back links.

**WebDizanSajtova** · 10-06-2009, 04:35 AM

Towhid,

It's ridiculous to link every web site on the internet with every web site. Inbound links should be from related, high PR web sites, and as many as you can get. That's the only truth.

Quality always beats quantity.

**janiels** · 10-06-2009, 05:20 AM

when we are talking on how to build links, you might be thinking of getting ways on how to come up and stay on the course of relevant sites, but if you are only targeting relevant sites, you might be doing the wrong thing.. not all sites needs to be relevant there are certain factors to think about, first is the traffic you might gain, your website is about pets right? so around it was some semi relevant sites such as pet accessories, vets and other stuffs as well.. if you put your links on this pages you might also acquire links even if they are not directly relevant to your site, the only thing that causes negative effects on your website are Link Acquisition from Known Link Brokers/Sellers, Links from the Page to Web Spam Sites/Pages but you won't get penalized by linking to non relevant sites...

**Towhid** · 10-06-2009, 06:30 AM

Thanks a lot guys for the answers. I will still try to get as many back links as possible (myself) but will look out for relevant sites especially. I did some research on several high traffic websites and they seem to have many back links from sites that aren't all that relevant (based on Alexa). Which leads me to believe that as long as the site linking to you isn't blacklisted or of an adult or otherwise controversial nature, it can't do that much harm. It seems like the anchor text that is being use in the link is more important. At least that's what I gather so far, I will still need to put it into practice and find out the real way. It's just that I don't want to sit around getting one or two quality links a week and that's it. I rather get a ton of links, some from relevant sites and most from random sites - all with keyword anchor text.

**Brian07002** · 10-06-2009, 01:45 PM

I say if you really want to have a fresh start, do NOT setup any kind of link farm on your site, I would suggest putting a link exchange script that requires authorization first, meaning you have to confirm each link before they get submitted to your website. I had this setup years ago, and it worked great, but unfortunately that was my last choice, didn't find it in time...Used all the link farm type scripts, which brought traffic/some sales, but degraded my search recognition.

**Happy50** · 10-07-2009, 02:19 PM

Hello

Links are important in raising the "popularity" of a site with the search engines.

I use 2 free resources (1 e-book actually), and I'd like to tell about them.

The e-book is Make Your Links work, and is a neat resource that covers practical hints and methods about link building. I can really suggest your go over to SiteSell and grab your free copy of this e-book.

The other resource I use is Value Exchange (also from SiteSell). You can join it for free, and it works great. Whenever VE finds suitable and quality links that match your keywords, you get an e-mail notification. Then you can contact the webmaster(s) and ask about exchanging links.

Hope this helps.

Happy50

**mrandrei** · 10-07-2009, 10:38 PM

It's best if you could build links that relevant to your site. Google gives utmost weight to link relevancy as much as it gives importance to link quality. Avoid link farms.