LB The Way Most People 99% Construct Their Backlinks Is Incorrect

[Bugsbu]

I would normally agree with you, but in 2020, Google feels more like a box of pralines—you never really know what you’re going to get.

As long as my niche (and many others I've seen) is filled with high-authority profile pages, Pinterest links, and other high-DA pages sitting on page 1, my expectations remain low.

That’s a bit different. For some keywords, Google prefers certain types of web 2.0 sites. You have to make sure the type of page you create matches what’s already on the first page.

I’ve always been someone who believed in quality—writing excellent content myself, earning natural links, just as you mentioned. But unfortunately, no matter how good your content is, it seems what really matters is the age and authority of your website or domain.

Great content alone won’t help you rank. It just makes it easier to buy guest posts from real sites. That's all it does.

When I talk about natural links, I don’t mean weak links or ones you just pick up naturally. I mean links from real sites with genuine content and topical authority (that’s an important term).

For example, take this spammy guest post site:

https://www.selfgrowth.com/ - 18k traffic, DR 79, and 2 million backlinks from 30k referring domains. This site is junk and lacks topical authority.
https://realtytimes.com/ - 12k traffic and 3 million backlinks from 14k referring domains. It’s the same situation.
There are tons of sites like these. These are some of the bigger, meatier ones, but they’re still worthless.

What does Realty Times rank for?

Its biggest keywords on the first page are:

"What is a villa?" - 10th position
"Termite bond" - 8th position
"Scooter tricks" - 7th position
Not impressive. It doesn’t have any topical authority. Google sees it as a bunch of junk. It has 28,600 pages indexed, but only 2,000 keywords on the first page.

There’s no link juice moving between the pages.

Why is that?

Because it’s not a real site set up correctly. It lacks internal links and doesn’t have any kind of structure.

You also pass juice internally through relevance, so if your site is a mix of unrelated topics, the juice doesn’t flow well throughout the site.

This creates a big, useless mess.

If you had a link on the homepage, it would be fairly strong because you’d tap directly into the juice, and the most natural links are usually to the homepage. Most inner links are from people who create their own SEO posts and then spam them, like this one: realtytimes.com/advicefromtheexpert/item/1022679-credit-card-generator-for-educational-purposes. Check the links to that page in Ahrefs.

The problem is that tools like Ahrefs don’t really understand how links work.

There’s no such thing as "domain authority." Google looks at individual pages. It sorts pages by topics and keywords, and it has a huge database that shows how they relate to each other. Juice flows based on how relevant they are.

For example, if you have a site about payday loans and you want juice from a gaming site, you need an article that connects loans to games. If you just have a regular article about loans, it won’t get any juice from the other pages on that site. So if you have a site called somegamessite.com with a DR of 90, and you put an article titled "Top 5 Payday Loans" on it, it won’t get any juice from the other pages because they’re all about gaming.

Instead, you need something like "22-Year-Old California Student Spends $4,873 on HayDay."

This way, you’ll have an article that includes keywords related to gaming, debt, finance, spending, and money. Juice will flow from other pages on that site to your payday loan page.

That’s what I mean when I talk about "natural.

This is why Ahrefs, Moz, and Majestic are often wrong. They don’t understand how links really work. These tools figure out power based on the number of links coming in and going out. But Google doesn’t do it that way. None of these tools consider relevance properly.

Many people think a relevant link is just one from a site in the same niche, but that’s not how Google would rank sites. It’s too limiting and separates parts of the web. It’s actually very normal for a gaming site to discuss finance, loans, or debt when it relates to gaming. Everything is connected!

The issue arises when you just drop a finance topic onto a gaming site or put an article about plumbing on a self-help site without any connection between the topics.

 

[Marysis]

I totally agree that the quality of a link is the most important thing. I have a good view of what people are doing and how search engines respond.

Many don’t realize they’re using the same spam techniques as 90% of others. These are links I wouldn’t want for my worst enemy. And this is just about links; if we start talking about content...

Quality is what really matters! It's worth taking the time to find quality, even if it makes you a lot less productive. It will protect you for a long time.

 

[Bugsbu]

Before the May update, my main competitor was pulling in over 75k monthly traffic. After the update, it dropped drastically to just 10k per month.

I’m not sure if it was due to PBNs or something else, but as a newbie, my guess is they were relying on too many low-quality PBN links.

That’s why I’m cautious about PBNs and prefer using naturally acquired links, niche edits, and guest posting instead.

Yes, it's great for churn and burn strategies. But for a long-term authority project, I’d still take all the risks into account.

This isn’t a manual penalty, and it has nothing to do with private blog networks (PBNs).

Many completely white-hat sites dropped in the May update. If what you’re saying is correct, then for those sites to be algorithmically penalized during the May 5 update means Google figured out how to detect PBNs.

But if that were true, why do hundreds of thousands of other sites still rank with PBNs?

It’s more likely that his site just dropped for no clear reason. The May 5 update affected a lot of sites. Many good sites lost rankings, while some bad ones improved. There wasn't a clear pattern to it, and they partially reversed some of the changes in June and July, with more updates coming in August and September.

These aren’t penalties; it’s just Google changing how it calculates rankings. If a site that was often in the top 3 suddenly drops to the 9-15 range, it could lose 90% of its traffic. Does that mean it was penalized? Did it do something wrong? Or did Google just change something that favored other sites?

 

[HellSuper]

Good links are expensive, while bad links are almost free. People usually try to avoid pain as much as possible. It’s a simple fact.

 

[Sealoye]

Alright, best of luck with your Web 2.0 strategies!



There's no need to diversify your backlinks—it's a myth. I've never bothered, and all my projects perform exceptionally well.

What matters are strong, contextual links. Period. Once you rank, your site will naturally diversify through the links it organically gains. You don’t need thousands of low-quality links to appear legitimate; in fact, that approach can backfire.

I agree with this. My idea of 'diversity' is having a careful mix of specific types of high-quality, relevant links. I focus on my main keyword (with quality), brand names (with quality), and related keywords (with quality). As the page gets older, I naturally get more links over time. Those links usually have more varied anchor texts. But when I’m reaching out for high-quality links (which are often expensive), I want to rank for what I’m aiming for, regardless of 'diversity.

 

[Pellico]

Please don't see this as an attack or as me trying to defend one side over the other. I'm just genuinely curious and playing devil's advocate because it's a great way to talk about a complex topic.

There’s no such thing as "domain authority." Google looks at individual pages. It sorts pages by topics and keywords, and it has a huge database that shows how they relate to each other. Juice flows based on how relevant they are.

This way, you’ll have an article that includes keywords related to gaming, debt, finance, spending, and money. Juice will flow from other pages on that site to your payday loan page.

Where are you getting this information? Is it an educated guess, a feeling, or from a detailed SEO study you did or found? If it’s from a study, could you share the link? If it’s not based on a trustworthy study, then no matter how reasonable it sounds, it’s just a guess.

Great content alone won’t help you rank. It just makes it easier to buy guest posts from real sites. That's all it does.

Do you believe you need to spend a good amount of money to rank well? If so, how much do you think a new affiliate marketer should spend each month to rank for a low to medium keyword? I know that’s a tough question to answer without looking at the keyword and competition, but are you thinking in the $100-500, $500-1,000, $1,000-3,000, or over $3,000 range?

Also, how do you find quality links? Do you do manual outreach yourself, hire someone else to do it, or use services like BHW for niche edits?

In my opinion, people know that more relevant backlinks from real sites in their niche are better, but they are just harder to get. I don't think anyone would choose a generic high DR backlink over a lower DR but much more relevant one. The problem is that relevant links are tough to secure because if they belong to a real person, it takes real outreach. On the other hand, some of the lower-quality links don’t have this barrier and can be created in just minutes, which is why people keep using them.

I've done manual outreach myself (with personalized emails, not automated ones) for a long time, and the success rates have been all over the place, with some days yielding very little. However, I’ve also spent a little time building some of the backlinks shared on this site and noticed modest improvements in search rankings, so it's hard to ignore them. Outreach often feels like a gamble when it comes to response rates (most webmasters have been spammed so much already), or it can be a big waste of money.

These are just my thoughts!

 

[SisterHippo]

Awesome info! I hope some of the links I got from your Wolf Network really help me with my search rankings!

 

[Poplec]

I'm still doing well with RankerX, so yeah, Web 2.0s don't really work, haha!