Hi there Samuel,

Thanks for the comment. I do however have to disagree with you strongly on the all link building is black hat comment.

Lets say you create a resource for you blog readership. It is designed as link bait but you put your sweat, love and tears into it. Not only is it link bait it is a useful, well researched, beatifully written, elegantly designed resource – it gets shared on Twitter, it gets its own links – some from rubbish sites, some from good sites and some from what Ruud called “wow – dudette” sites.

You designed it with a few things in mind:

1. Give your readers something worthwhile and useful
2. Expand your brand reach and brand familiarity
3. Get a few links as well

This kind of content and resources are not black hat but are a link building technique.

Not all link building has to be about manipulation!

But I do concur that there are a lot of firms producing spam ridden rubbish!

Dont believe me?

According to Google’s TOS, natural links are those links other sites point back to your site without the need to pay for it, ask for it, comment for it or insert a link in your hundreds of purposely written articles to gain it.

So, if all link building techniques are actually manipulating search engine results, does it not stand to logic that all link building is Blackhat and off-page SEO practiced by most SEO firms is in effect, Blackhat?

Think about it!

The majority of web sites have no or hardly any incoming links. The links they do have are of “low” quality: mentions on a forum, a social networking site, stuff like that. Google certainly isn’t going around punishing those sites made by Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe.

But likewise sites that DO have incoming links, tend to have a pyramid-style quality spread. Heaps of “whatever” links, good section of “nice!” links and a couple of “wow, dudette!!!” links. The least I would do working at Google would be to flag a site for review when it has a good amount of links but that spread differs a lot from the others.

Am I off here, you think?

A link is a link is a link…I have to agree with you! It is also important not to spend too much time or poor quality links. Sure it will boost you link count and diversity, but don’t spend to long on it.
In reference to your penalisation point…Google isn’t daft, everyone gets low qulaity links to their sites – it can be out of your hands. A link profile that show persistent spamming (well!).
I think you should target some low quality links, I think you should target nofollow links – essentailly Google wants to see a natural link profile.
You should work out how valuable any given link is and then spend the appropriate amount of time on it.

I hear many people talking about getting penalized by incoming links of low quality and I think it’s also important to debunk this myth while we are on the topic.

Yes a totally spammed link profile can get you slapped, but some naturally gained low quality links wont hurt a bit. Worst case they just won’t help much.

Other than that, it’s a great article and does a good job of defining what a “great link” really is.

Wow, Ruud is right you do have a lovely way with words! You make a key point about the long haul, which probably leads me to think that I should have added:
Is the link going to be around for a while – hopefully forever!

Ruud got in there before me…link building is tough work (but rewarding) and you get a buzz when you come up with something that works well!

Govern, that’s so true. We have dedicated link builders at Search Engine People and I can tell you they’re among the most respected team members simply because they work *so* hard.

Thanks for commenting!

Sofia, you have a way with words 🙂 that’s one special simile

Sofia