The Age Old Question: What’s the Future of Link Building?

SMS Text
What's the Future of Link Building? | Search Engine Journal

“Link building” is a bad word to most SEOs and online marketers. If you’re an agency who does link building, you get fired by your clients. If you’re an in-house SEO who does link building, you get fired from your company. If you do link building, your site gets hit with a penalty. However you slice it, link building is evil incarnate in the world of search engine optimization.

Or is it?

It seems to me as if SEOs have to tow the party line. “Link building is evil” and therefore, SEOs must act in like they believe link building is bad. Because SEO is still recovering from the smut of old link building days, we have to recover our reputation by declaring loudly, with the rest of them, that link building is horrible!

But every SEO knows that link building is absolutely imperative for successful SEO (link goes to an article on the topic on my own site). We’re caught in the classic Catch-22 of modern SEO — the need and evilness of link building.

I want to sketch out what I believe the future of link building is, but first, we need to take a look at two important subjects: Why link building is bad, and why link building is good.

The Evils of Link Building

Link building is the locus of classic black hat techniques from a few years ago.

Remember the wild west days of SEO, when you could PayPal a few bucks to someone and get 200 links to your website in a few hours? “Get me to the first position on Google” was totally not a problem, as long as you knew what strings to pull and what links to build.

However, it was spam city. Google wised up and started putting the kibosh on these practices. Algorithms got better at detecting against-the-rules junk, and SEOs responded by respecting the limits imposed upon them.

Today, you are totally unable to rank by exploiting the black-hat techniques that SEOs used to pawn off as “optimization.” Alarmingly, there are still some shady agencies that do commit such disrespect to the search gods. In reality, what these agencies are doing is accepting money in exchange for smearing a website in the dirt. Penalties shall come upon them like a plague.

I can’t tell you the number of times that I’ve responded to a distraught call or email from someone saying “We hired an SEO agency to help us, and now we have a penalty!”

In every case, the issue is with link building. I have yet to see a manual Google penalty that is levied for something other than links.

That’s the evil of link building. Once you understand the slimy side of link building, you begin to realize why it’s such a point of contention among SEOs.

But that’s only half the story.

The Necessity of Link Building

When we talk about “link building” the first thing we need to do is define our terms. The semantics of the issue are notoriously thorny.

One the one hand “link building” is a baggage-laden term, rife with visions of spammy link bots and black hat techniques. On the other hand, “link building” is a functional term that simply refers to the white-hat technique of optimizing a site through content and best practices in order to naturally gain legitimate backlinks.

What’s an SEO to do? Well, you can call it what you want, as long as you define your terms. If you prefer a more sanitized phrase like “earning links” or some other variation, that’s fine.

Why is this so important? Because link building now has two distinct definitions:

  • Definition 1: Circa 2011 spammy backlink building through black-hat techniques. (Bad!)
  • Definition 2: Modern legitimate earning of backlinks through appropriate methods. (Good!)

The fact is, the search algorithms are still heavily weighted towards backlinks. How do we know this?

Basically, because Google tells us so.

Let’s first go to the bible of all SEOs, the Webmaster Guidelines. This is where Google tells us what’s good, what’s bad, and how to fix all our problems.

Take a look.

What's the Future of Link Building? | Search Engine Journal

The question that this article answers is, What are the “steps to a Google-friendly site”? The answer: “Make sure that other sites link to yours.” It’s the second factor on the list, ranking only behind “give visitors the information they’re looking for.”

As late as 2013, Google’s own ranking article had this bit of advice (now changed):

In general, webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by increasing the number of high-quality sites that link to their pages.

Google’s “Inside Search” has critical information that helps us understand how the algorithm works:

As our crawlers visit these websites, they look for links for other pages to visit. The software pays special attention to new sites, changes to existing sites and dead links.

These are all positive indications that Google still values links as a factor in search ranking. But we can also tell by the negative things that Google says about spammy links.

These comments, again from Inside Search, alert us to the significance of links. Google lists these two factors as major spam signals:

Unnatural Links From a Site

Google detected a pattern of unnatural, artificial, deceptive or manipulative outbound links on this site. This may be the result of selling links that pass PageRank or participating in link schemes.

Unnatural Links to a Site

Google has detected a pattern of unnatural artificial, deceptive or manipulative links pointing to the site. These may be the result of buying links that pass PageRank or participating in link schemes.

If unnatural, artificial, deceptive or manipulative links are so bad, then the converse must be true — good links help your site.

But who needs this information when we have experience? How many of us know or experienced first hand the power of a single high-authority link to a site that catapulted the page or site in the rankings?

Obviously, search is complex, and there are myriad factors that affect a site’s rankings. That is true and always will be. But this is true as well: Natural and authoritative links to a site help that site improve rank.

The Future of Link Building

Now that we’ve laboriously laid an appropriate foundation, let’s move on to the future of link building. I believe there are more than these six issues to consider. However, these are what I consider to be the most reliable and significant changes to link building in the coming years.

Keep in mind that I’m focusing on Google as the driving search engine of note in the discussion below (with the exception of number 5 and 6).

1. Links Will Still be a Significant Part of the Algorithm

Links aren’t going away as a search factor. They are too embedded in the algorithm to be completely extricated. One can simply not expect to have an algorithm that disregards links. We’re stuck with links for a while — a good while, I think.

2. The Algorithm Will Become Increasingly Attuned to Non-Legitimate Forms of Building Links

Early in 2014, Google showed us that it’s still identifying and penalizing non-legitimate forms of link building. I think that will continue. With every iteration of Penguin, we see a tightening of the algorithm against spammy link building. Google is and always will be against spam in all its dark and ominous forms. The algo will get even smarter in spotting the lurking evil of links that aren’t supposed to be rewarded.

3. The Algorithm Will Shift Towards Stronger Alternate Signals

I think that Google is trying to get away from links as a ranking factor. Major algorithm changes are focused on fighting spam, especially spammy backlinks. But as they fight spam, they need something to replace it as a ranking factor. What can replace it? There are options, and they’ve already showed us some of those things that improve a site’s quality. Content is the biggest — high-quality, long form, well-written content. Another one is security, as the HTTPS ranking signal algorithm indicates.

4. The Algorithm Will Prefer to See Co-Citation, Co-Occurrence, and General Brand Authority

There are three factors I see as increasingly important in the upcoming years. Co-citation and co-occurrence are two factors, as I’ve discussed elsewhere. These non-direct forms of link building and reference are already a presumed part of the algorithm, and will probably be increasing in significance. Another parallel reason is brand authority. As some SEOs have noted, PR (or brand authority) and SEO are being rolled into a single powerful search entity. The power and authority of a brand is no longer dependent upon its cultural cachet, but upon its web presence and overall referencing in the digital landscape.

5. An Evolution of User Search Practices

Google isn’t the only one changing. Users are changing, too. They’re using their mobile devices to browse, search, and navigate the web. Wearable technology is becoming more common, leading to a gradual decline of traditional search methods. I don’t know exactly where the shift in user search practices is leading, but I know that it will probably be less reliant upon traditional search practices, and therefore less dependent upon Google as the defining factor in ranking and link authority.

6. An Increase in Social Search

Social media is the new Google. Many people prefer to conduct searches within their own social networks, rather than trust Google to give them the right information. If they want to find out the best brand for running shoes, more and more users will query their social networks, rather than Google “best running shoe brand.” Social media is nowhere near a plateau. It’s rising in functional usage, and going to be with us for the long haul. And the thing about social media is that it doesn’t depend on backlinks as a ranking signal.

Conclusion

We have links to deal with for much of the foreseeable future. For that reason, it’s important to depend upon sustainable link building practices. I do not advocate indiscriminate and unhealthy link building. Instead, I advise SEOs and marketers to spend the bulk of their resources on high quality content marketing for the most effective and enduring method of search optimization.

What do you think? What’s the future of link building?

Editor Note: In the LA area and want to learn more from Neil? Sign up to attend our SEJ Summit Santa Monica on February 24! Cost of your ticket is covered by our partner, Searchmetrics.

 

Featured Image: Lightspring via Shutterstock

Neil Patel
Neil Patel is the co-founder of KISSmetrics, an analytics provider that helps companies make better business decisions. Neil also blogs about marketing and entrepreneurship at Quick Sprout.
Get the latest news from Search Engine Journal!
We value your privacy! See our policy here.
  • Kristine S

    I have issue with the entire beginning premise of this article. LINK BUYING AND LINK SPAM techniques are what you are meaning when you talk about black hat. LINK BUILDING is finding places thru relationships, niches, influence marketing etc to build links which means you’ve spent time to in researching viable placements that will make it appear natural.

    You don’t use blog networks, scripting tools and fake directories etc. The two are completely different, but because of this article and your prominence we will now have to spend time explaining, no, link building isn’t about building spammy, easily identifiable bad black hat links using bad practices.

    • http://linkarati.com Andrew Dennis

      I agree with Kristine to an extent. I don’t think you were trying to paint link building in the manner that Kristine describes above, but because you led with the “Evils of Link Building” I can definitely understand where she is coming from. I fear that far too many will only read the beginning of this article and leave thinking “Well, Neil Patel says link building is bad”.

      However, with that being said I can appreciate that you presented both sides of the link building spectrum. I also felt you did a good job of clearly demonstrating how vital links are to SEO success.

      Overall I enjoyed the article, and for the most part, I think you’re pretty spot-on with your predictions for the future. Thanks for the post Neil.

    • http://www.carolinaadgroup.com Anthony McQueen

      I agree with Kristine as well. I believe that a verbiage distinction would help here. I’ve always heard of the black hat techniques described in the “Evils of Link Building” as ‘manual link building’. Manual link building being distinctly different from building an array of natural links as a result of creating and sharing quality content and so forth.

      I’d be interested also to read more on the social and local topics. It was my understanding that Google also recently built social media statistics into it’s existing ranking algorithm. Google also now gives preference to local businesses and websites in situations where they feel that searches have a “local intent”. For the large majority of searches it isn’t uncommon to see a completely different set of results in NY and LA.

      Overall the purpose and point of the article conveys a truth that will always exist. Being an SEO means adapting quickly to change. So it is, and so it always will be.

  • http://GlobalBizToday.com Iman

    The link building never die because Google needs links. Google regularly improve its algorithm for fighting the spams.

    Focus acquiring better quality links from related and higher authority websites.

  • http://www.davestravelpages.com Dave Briggs

    Link building is the basis on which the internet connects itself, so it will never die out. What may happen though, is Google put emphasis on other areas such as social signals from social media. However, if they do this, they will lose control over how they present search results, so its quite intriguing as to how they will develop search algorithms. Until then, links are here to stay. – of course they should be natural and genuine though.

  • http://www.brickmarketing.com Nick Stamoulis

    Link building is only evil if you are referring to old school link building- buying links, low quality directories, etc. There is a such thing as good link building. It’s up to us to properly educate our clients on what the difference is.

    • https://seonaut.dk Peter Ulstrup Hansen

      I, for one, call it link development, but link building is what it really is. It’s a matter of renaming it to be acceptable to clients, links (high quality) is as important as ever. Thanks for a great post!

  • http://revenuehitsreview.com/ Waqas Ahmed

    There is so many confusion about link building. But Google described it very simple, be natural this is the best way of creating links, but i have a question, is creating too many natural links are also spam ?

  • http://sagadseo.com.au/ Tamara Lewis

    Useful article, thanks for the leads. Anyway, there are so many predictions for digital marketing this year. Using quality and relevant link building techniques is not evil and it may use to get good results from a website. Building links that make sense is the only way to build links in order to rank high for the money keywords. Those are the links Google wants to count, wants to value.

  • Damouchari

    This is really a headache for me. I cant understand were the unique content will help my website in order to get good links. I mean I have an accommodation to present and that’s all. I don’t have to do much. Write about the area and the accommodation. And I really dont think that anyone would link to my webpage for it’s content. So what do we do WE the owners of small businesses? I guess we never have the results that we seek. Anyway really good artical. Thank you very much.

  • http://ashishkulkarni.net Ashish

    @Neil
    I was expecting an answer to this question “What’s the Future of Link Building?” however after reading this article till end… there was no answer to this question. ūüôĀ

  • http://premnath321.com/ Prem Nath Vishwakarma

    Superb Neil As Always! While i like the three notable points in this article as –
    1. Let’s first go to the bible of all SEOs, the Webmaster Guidelines.
    2. But who needs this information when we have experience? ūüėČ
    3. If unnatural, artificial, deceptive or manipulative links are so bad, then the converse must be true. (Tweeted Too About It)

  • Vinicius

    Great Article. I was in doubt of how to create more connections to my website from my lawyer firm. Indeed, paying for links is not the best practice . Thanks.

  • Pawan Sharma

    I advise SEOs and marketers to spend the bulk of their resources on high quality content marketing for the most effective and enduring method of search optimization. I was really finding this type of post thanks for sharing your great knowledge with us. thanks to SEJ they post google experts posts

  • Prateek

    Hi Neil,

    thats a very nice post, its sometimes scares me when i think about what is the future of link building, as we also spend a lot of time with content marketing and i found this point really interesting, “the alternate signals”. i think whosoever doing the best SEO practice will get the best results in the future.

  • Vladimir

    I think that backlinking will never go away. Search engines will just get better in catching unnatural backlinks and penalizing bad websites. Social backlinks will get more importance, but social networks will have to take care of spammy backlinks themselves in order to do good for search ranking.

  • http://alltechtricksguru.blogspot.in/ rahul choudhary

    There is such a variety of disarray about third party referencing. Anyhow Google depicted it extremely straightforward, be characteristic this is the most ideal method for making connections, yet i have an inquiry, is making an excess of common connections are likewise spam ?

  • Sohel Rana

    Thank you so much for helping me giving some ideas about making backlinks.