How to get links to a website in the shortest possible time ?
| Tweet | Share |
Getting links to a website is probably the toughest yet the most rewarding thing to happen to a website. One that every webmaster hopes, tries and wishes for every time. But how easy is it to get links to a website ? How can you do it the right way ? Why do people always talk about numbers, is that all about it, or is there something beyond ? More questions than answers, anyways let’s try and discuss it in the most simple and understandable ways today.
We have discussed various link building methods, here, you might want to check it. But lets focus more on the time part of it. How fast can we get links and how fast is too fast ?
First off, even though getting links to a website is important, its very important that we don’t overdo it. And that means one shouldn’t speed it up in some un naturally awkward way (even if you could) nor one should focus more on getting as many links as possible getting just too obsessed with the numbers.
Co-relation between the traffic and link popularity signals
Many people think about numbers and are obsessed with it. Let me grab as many links as possible for my website – is their mantra and its not quite right. The thing is that Google, probably out of its experience knows that a website that is not popular do not get links pointing to it that very often and probably takes its own time in gaining the adequate number of links matching the competition. There is an unwritten formula that matches the link popularity with traffic of a website. Now, that does not mean that a website cannot get lot of links without getting popular, no. If the content is unique and awesome, like lets say a new website for a political campaign by a popular leader, might get lot of links immediately, but then again there’s a popularity curve that shoots up. So, having a relative co-relation between the traffic to a website and the link popularity is a good signal to the engines that the links are genuine and not artificial. But if there is a non-correlation then even though it might be genuine, it would not send the right signals to the search engines about the genuine-ness of the links. So its a good practice that one refrain from any methods that promises to give you as many links as possible in a short time frame. In short, number – isn’t the name of the game.
Less is more when it comes to number of links to a website
Now, don’t get me wrong, but less could be more, provided you have quality. Let me explain. Quality of a link pointing to a site is measured from signals such as the Google PageRank of the website, number of links pointing to it, other websites mentioning the website contextually, references in authoritative sources such as the Wikipedia, general traffic signals, site age, health etc. Mostly, its the link popularity of the website that matters. If the linking website has enough link popularity to pass on, that itself is a good push to the linked website. That said, getting more links, as many as possible is not the deal. But, as you might have already guessed, getting as many quality links as possible matters. And if the links are already good in link popularity, then only a couple of them can do the trick. So the final word is that – less is more.
Summary
Let’s not confuse things here, but essentially, I’m trying to explain that getting links to a website, though an important factor, shouldn’t go aggressive. There are various methods to get links to your website from good authority sources, the healthy way. These methods work the healthy way and might not give you results overnight, but that’s the best part. Getting obsessed with links is a dangerous thing to happen to a webmaster. So remember, get as many as high-quality links, get them nice and slow, and fewer in number – that’s the right way to go about it.
Your Link building methods are really useful
The problem with this thesis is that search engines have no idea how much traffic a site or individual webpage is receiving. This is not public information, it’s only known to the server receiving the traffic, and Google is not omniscient. It doesn’t know more than the rest of us.
Agree, but here’s the thing. If your site is on Google, it knows exactly how many hits it got from organic search via its own engines. That itself is a god clue, don’t you think ? But this is both good and bad. Good because the clues are true and wrong because there might be more to know.
How would that work?
Your idea is that a sudden increase in backlinks should be the result of a sudden spike in traffic, otherwise it looks like the site is gaming the system somehow, not a natural increase in links.
But the spike in traffic, and the links that result, would happen before those links boost the site’s position in SERPs. So they would come before Google drives more traffic to the site. The indicator you’re saying should be predictive is a lagging indicator, it always happens after the fact, so it can’t be predictive.
Dan imagine this. A new site with nothing awesomely outstanding about it. No press, no marketing, no paid clicks. Been there for three months. Gets a ton of links from forums/article bases but no real traffic. Let’s call this Site A.
And here’s Site B – New site, been three months except that the content is awesomely unique, with breaking stories and videos lets say. Gets a lot of links from relevant websites and..lot of traffic along the way.
I was trying to say that adopting Site B’s strategy is a better one than Site A.
Hope its clear to you now.
Well, I guess that does help me quite a bit.
Thak you
Hi Mani,
always interesting to visit your blog, which i do on a frequent base. Listen it might be my comp but when using your search field all searches come up with a 404 “Oh! wait a minute.. is it me or you? .. Something went wrong . .. could be the codes. Phew!”
Not sure if this might be antoher one of your tricks, but don’t think so anyway thoguht worth to mention it to you.
Cheers
Olaf
Thanks Olaf, for letting know. Am on it already.
this is true. building links must be done naturally and not excessively.