I build a lot of links. Most of them are “unsexy”.
I put that in quotes because, in my mind, they’re very sexy links. The kind of links which I know will move the needle for clients, and the kind of links which get me all hot and bothered (I’m a sad individual).
However, trying to justify some of these links to clients, particularly clients with little link building experience, is very tough. Typically, unsexy links don’t look the best. In fact, let’s not beat around the bush here – they can look pretty shit.
But if you understand the PageRank algorithm, and what Google deems to be ‘good’, then you know that looks aren’t everything in the world of link building. Some of the best links I’ve ever acquired have been on bare basic html sites which have been on the internet for 17 years. Clients hate them, Google loves them.
Let’s go through a real example:
Reader’s Digest VS a B&B in Wiltshire
note – I’ll be referring to Majestic metrics such as TF throughout this post. I typically cross-reference Majestic metrics with Ahrefs metrics when assessing the potential link value of a web page.
We acquired a link for a travel client within this Reader’s Digest article:
Pretty sweet right? Well, yes and no.
Yes because the article might end up in front of someone looking to book a holiday, and our client might get a booking. No, because in terms of the impact that this article may have on the rankings of our client, it’s virtually nil.
In the eyes of Google, this article is essentially an ‘Orphan Page’ – it isn’t linked to from anywhere particularly important on the Reader’s Digest website, and it doesn’t have any particularly good external links pointing directly at it. Yes, it might be within an article on an authoritative website, but it just isn’t that important as far as Google is concerned.
Let’s compare this article to the ‘Links’ page of a small B&B in Wiltshire:
Higher Trust Flow and Citation Flow?! What is this sorcery??
Although the site itself has far less importance and authority than Reader’s Digest, the page is actually much more established. Firstly, it has been around since 2015, so has been live on the internet for almost 10 years. Secondly, it is internally linked to sitewide from the footer. So every page with links pointing at it is passing further link equity to this page.
Some other reasons I’d rather get a link from this lovely B&B than the Reader’s Digest:
- Price – unless you’re very persistent, you’re probably going to have to part with some pretty substantial cash to get a link from RD. I’ll get a link from this B&B just by asking nicely and giving them something useful.
- Location Relevance – if I’m trying to rank in the UK (which often for clients we are) then I’d much rather get a link from a .co.uk website for location relevance.
- ‘Good neighbourhood’ – this is an interesting one – look at the sites this ‘Links’ page is currently linking to. They’re all official sites, organisations like The National Trust. To have a client site being linked to amongst that is giving all the right signals.
Getting a link from a B&B is definitely not as sexy as a link from one of the biggest website publications in the world. However, it’s almost certainly more likely to move the rankings needle.
This concept is actually why I’m not a huge fan of PR-led link building campaigns. Sometimes they can really work, for sure. But for the most part, you get this when you try and cram PR and link building together:
- links on pages which will never be linked to from anywhere important on the site they’re published on
- links on pages which will never receive links themselves
- no follow links
If your job is to build links which will influence rankings then PR-led link building is not your friend. If your job is to impress a client with little link building knowledge then sure, knock yourself out.
