Home – New Forums Tech talk The current state of the SEO industry and how you can avoid getting burnt Reply To: The current state of the SEO industry and how you can avoid getting burnt

  • Total posts: 2,642
MD Clean, post: 200550 wrote:
Here is an (smartpassiveincome.com/backlinking-strategy-2014-beyond) Epic Blog Post On Backlinking.

It is a step by step guide on how to build Google friendly backlinks in 2014. A Must read and it will dispell any myths that white hat tactics can be done quickly.
Hi Paul,
The WWW’s biggest problem is ACCURACY of information.

I don’t mean to demean your contribution but IMHO the article referenced is out of date, ill-informed and offering a lot of misinformation about links and SEO.

The problem was that the further I read the article, the hotter under the collar I became – Please forgive my escalating rant below.

Let me offer my comments on various elements of the article that concerned me…

1. Article date & Author: 1 Oct 2014
While the article is new, its SEO references are years old and way out of date.

It is a “link bait” article aimed at folk with limited SEO knowledge and written by someone with limited knowledge of SEO. Go check out the author’s “About” page. He was a “job captain” (whatever that is) in an architecture firm until 2008.

Here are some examples of the article’s limitations.

2. “SEO Is Still All About Links”

Absolute garbage!

SEO is “all about” attracting the most relevant SE referrals with the available resources and that means pages of relevant content about the searcher’s info query.

SEO was ALL ABOUT RELEVANT CONTENT before there was a Google and all Google did was develop an alternative way of identifying it.

Most SE referrals are NOT lost because there are not enough links to a page, they are lost because businesses don’t have a page of content on their site that qualifies for most search queries.

It never has been “all about links”. It has always been about content. Links can only support content.

The most successful site I can name in terms of its number of top ranked search phrases has never had a link building program and there are virtually no useful links to it to this day.

It ranks #1 for its primary search term and ranked below it are pages published on sites like Gumtree and ABC.net.au.

3. “Moz’s most recent “Search Engine Ranking Factors” study found that 18 of the 19 top ranking signals were backlink-related”
The article is quoting a 2 year old reference that is a SURVEY not a STUDY based on the opinions of a bunch of self selected SEOs. This SURVEY is not fact.

On top of that, there have been more dramatic Google changes in the last 2 years than in its entire previous history. Even the company that published the survey had to totally reposition itself and its SEO services over this time period.

4. “Focus on Building Links From Authority Sites”


What you need to do is focus on building links from sites whose content relates to your product, service or target customer and who are located in the same relevant location as your site.

I defy anyone to identify useful link target sites based on some trumped up calculation of “site authority” or “domain authority”.

To revert to the site referenced in point 2 above that ranked top of its primary search phrase, here are some trumped up “domain authority” numbers provided by one frequently used SEO tool…

Ref. Site: Google Rank #1
Domain authority = 5
No. referring domains = 8
No. backlinks = 27

Google Rank #3: Gumtree.com.au
Domain authority = 65
No. referring domains = 12,000
No. backlinks = 141,000

Google Rank #7: abc.net.au
Domain authority = 77
No. referring domains = 141,000
No. backlinks = 18,000,000

Would anyone care to explain to us the logic of seeking links primarily based on some “authority” index? (I use this example all the time with email spamming, so-called SEO companies and they all run away with their tail between their legs.)

5. “Anchor Text Diversity”

“Back in the day, if you wanted to rank for the keyword “green coffee mugs”, you’d want 100% of your anchor text to be “green coffee mugs”.”

If this guy knew anything about SEO he would know that wasting time on one or a handful of keywords is inefficient SEO!

Now G has emasculated even this simplistic tactic he has to come up with something “new” to impress us.

Some WWW facts of life:

a. Most external links will be to your domain name. (Google will know this.)

b. Depending on your content strategy, the next most used anchor text is likely to include a page’s heading on your site. That means you need to choose your page headings very carefully. (It is harder than it sounds.)

Make sure your page title, URL, meta description compliment your page heading.

Why is he waffling on about selecting your anchor text? For valuable external links, the site owner is going to specify the link text. All you can do is try to influence them with your page heading.

6. “Relevance is the New PR”

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? This confirms that this bloke is a 5 minute wonder!

Back in Mar 1996 Bill Gates coined the phrase “content is king”. All that has changed is volume of information. Back when Google first started it indexed 24 million web pages. Now it claims there are 60 trillion documents we have to sift through to find the info that is RELEVANT to us.

If someone thinks “relevance” is new, it can only mean they just found out about this MOST BASIC CHARACTERISIC OF THIS MEDIUM!!!! (Duh! Surely even Homer Simpson knows this.)

What sets the WWW apart is that the information recipient is in charge of what they see or hear. If you don’t deliver info of relevance to your target audience, your info will never be seen or heard. “Relevance” has been mission critical to the WWW long before there was a Google.

7. “Overview of the Process”

This is his laughably ridiculous advice:
“Find a proven topic.
Create ONE awesome resource around that topic.
Reach out and get your links.”

My advice on reading this article is to quote Monty Python,



To put it another way, all this emphasis on link building is SEO bulls**t!

Sorry, Paul. Hope I have not offended you. I’m not criticising you.