To Link or Not To Link; That Is The

Question Post Google Penguin

As we know, Google is constantly tweaking its rankings algorithm to improve the relevancy of its search listings. The first iteration of one of the most dramatic updates in some

time, known as the “Panda” or “Farmer” update, rolled out in the

spring of 2011.

This update’s focus was to eliminate low quality content spam

from its database. Since then, numerous tweaks to the Panda update have been implemented without major ramifications for

most webmasters.

That is until the most recent Google Penguin update. No less controversial, this one targets “over optimized” web

sites; sites that use moderate to aggressive link building tactics, the

utilization of blog networks and black hat tools to obtain links, the use of

“un-natural” or over optimized anchor text and so on.

Since then, Google has sent out signals that indicate SEO is going to

matter less in the future, and quality content is going to be paramount.

According to Matt Cutts, new changes are going to “level the playing field”,

making it easier for the folks who don’t focus on SEO to rank higher just by having a great, content rich site.

This has left some webmasters wondering if this signals the “end of

SEO.”

short and quick answer is no, it doesn’t.

Does Google Penguin Mean the End of SEO?

Why?

To answer that, we have to determine how any search engine determines

relevancy, and assesses the quality of any of the sites in its database. There

are three ways…

Essentially, this is the content of your web pages, and the various related

HTML elements (Title and Meta tags, H1, H2 and H3 tags, etc.).

1. What you say about you:

These are the in-pointing links from authority web sites, guest posts, blog

comments links, bookmarking, directory sites, and so on.

2. What others “say” about you:

These are the “Tweets”, “Likes” and “Google +1’s” that your site

generates. Simply put, these are another form of links.

3. What the social web says about you:

If we go back to the days before Google, when AltaVista, Fast, and

Inktomi-powered engines ruled the ‘Net, ranking algorithms were determined largely by on page

factors, or “what you say about you.”

Since the vast majority of webmasters have a vested interest in presenting

their web sites as the “best” regardless of whether they are or not, this didn’t always lead to the highest quality results. Plus, the results were pretty easy to game, by analyzing the densities of various on page factors, and altering your pages so they met

them.

Google changed the rules of the game, because it figured “what

others say about you” (in the form of in pointing links, which in essence act

like “votes” for the quality of your content) would be a better metric to use in determining search relevancy

than relying purely on on-page metrics.

Then Google came along.

And while there have been some glitches, this strategy has worked

pretty well for Google. Despite the fact that Google’s results have been –

up to this point at least – relatively easy to game using aggressive link

building tactics, focusing on in-pointing links is still by far the best

way to determine relevancy.

To suggest therefore, that SEO or link building is no longer applicable in 2012 is counter intuitive.

Think about what makes content great for a moment.

Is it fantastic prose? A conversational style? Citations or documentation to

support statements? A certain number of words? Links to

authoritative resources? A specific ratio of nouns to verbs? It could be

any or all of these things.

Or perhaps even none of them. The point is, what makes content “great”

is entirely subjective. Determining great content from average content based entirely on on-page factors is,

at the time of this writing at least, not something at which the search engines are particularly good.

It still makes the most sense to use off-page ranking factors – that means links from credible resources – to best

determine this.

These too are going to be important moving forward, but it’s unlikely that

they can or will play a huge role in any ranking algorithm for the simple reason

that most sites don’t get more than a handful of “Likes”, “Tweets”, and so on.

What About Social Signals?

So let’s go back to the “level the playing field” statement, and the assertion that Google is making it easier for sites that don’t focus on

aggressive SEO to rank higher simply by having a great, content rich site. How

does this play out for you?

Let us ignore the obvious incongruity; that engaging in smart SEO somehow precludes quality content. Investing in SEO has always been a smart business strategy and for many businesses; it

generates a decent return on investment, which is exactly why it is

done.

Sidebar:

If Google really is interested in delivering the best possible results to its audience, it can’t simply penalize

sites that have used link building tactics in the past, if those sites really are the best possible option for their

audience.

As anyone who has built a brand new site in the last year or two will tell you, expecting Google to drive traffic to it without engaging in some sort of link

building is akin to waiting on the winning numbers in the lottery. It just

does not happen.

What Mr Cutt’s is most likely saying therefore is this…

Sites that develop slow building, natural link profiles – with links that likely constitute genuine “votes” for the

quality of your content, are going to do just as well or better as sites that obtain tons of links via aggressive link building

for the sole purpose of manipulating search rankings.

Of course, it’s difficult for Google to assess what really constitutes a

genuine link or not, and since the majority of small, content rich sites

don’t receive many (or any) links from high quality authority sites, it simply can’t eliminate the value of all low

quality links without compromising the integrity of its database.

In many ways, low quality links are the most natural of links, and the sort of

links most sites acquire (blog comment links, forum links and social

bookmarking links are all prime examples).

So what’s the bottom line, moving forward?

How To Recover From Google Penguin?

Your link building has to appear as natural and “un-manipulated” as possible. Some ways to do this?…

1. Your anchor text needs to be varied and a percentage of it should be “un-optimized” (i.e., “click here”, “for more information”, etc.).

2. Links should point to internal pages of the site and not just the home page.

3. Links should come from a wide variety of link types (i.e., press releases, guest posts, blog comments, videos, social bookmarks, etc.).

4. A significant percentage (perhaps as much as a quarter) of your links should be “no follow.” Such links are part of a natural link profile.

5. The amount of links you obtain should be in direct proportion to your site’s traffic. A site that receives 10 visits a day, for instance, is not going to obtain 5,000 social bookmarks in a month.

6. Stay completely “white hat.” Forget tools that offer instant backlinks, traffic, etc. If Google doesn’t know about them

now, it will soon, and will take the appropriate action. You will lose

whatever ranking benefit you obtained, and may possibly incur a penalty.

It goes without saying that your content should be great. This is something Google has always claimed to hold

paramount and should not come as a surprise. However, the biggest take

home lesson from Panda 3.3 when it comes to building links is that if it

“seems unreasonable”, then it probably is, and Google will act accordingly.

Now more than ever, it seems, SEO is a race that goes to the tortoise, not the hare. Slow and steady should be your link building mantra, post Panda 3.3.