Backlinking in 2014 21

For the last decade or more, backlinking has been the most important tool in an SEOs arsenal to get better rankings.  For many webmasters, backlinking was SEO.  For some, it still is.

Google have made it pretty clear that they hate webmasters trying to manipulate the rankings.  Why do they hate it so much?  Simply because webmasters can get pages ranked in the top 10 that do not deserve to rank there.  Google want the search results to return the very best pages to the searcher, for any topic, and webmasters just get in the way of their expensive, complicated algorithms.

Google are continuously fighting a battle against webmasters.  The webmasters are trying to get their inferior pages to rank better, and Google are trying to prevent them from doing so.

In the early days of the search engines (before Google), ranking was easy.  Just include the keyword phrase you wanted to rank for several times on your page, and you had a good chance.  If a competitor over-took you in the rankings, just add a few more instances of that keyword than your competitor had on his page, and you’d leap-frog them.  Think what those web pages looked like.  More and more pages started to have long lists of keywords, and this obviously started causing quality control issues.

Then Google came on the scene. Here is how it appeared in January 1999:


Google’s creators had worked on an algorithm at University, called Page Rank, and they wanted to test how Page Rank would work in a search engine.

With Page Rank, webpages would receive “votes” from any site that linked to them.  If one site linked to another, it was because the site they were linking to was valuable for some reason.  Google reasoned that the more links to a site, the higher its value (and authority), therefore it should rank higher.

Obviously Page Rank and the whole voting system was/is flawed, because it assumes that webmasters have no control over who links to them.  What happened?  Webmasters just went out and built their own links, to manufacture their own authority, even to the extent of building satellite sites whose sole purpose was to funnel link juice to the money site.

Google’s fight against backlink spam escalated into a full out war.

Over the last couple of year, we’ve seen huge changes in the way Google are trying to deal with spam, and their tolerance limits towards webmasters.

Google use to state that bad backlinks could not harm your site.  Webmasters loved this, because it meant their competitors could not bring them down with negative SEO – that is, building huge numbers of bad links with automated tools like SENuke, XRummer and others.  Safe in the knowledge that bad links could not hurt rankings, webmasters started building even more links to their sites, in bulk.  I mean if bad links cannot hurt, more is better right?

With Panda and Penguin, everything changed.  Google removed the statement from their site, no longer offering immunity to sites with bad link profiles.  Google were waging war on their enemies, that is, ALL webmasters that tried to manipulate the rankings.  Anyone that had ever built dodgy, low quality links, was targeted.  Huge numbers of sites fell from grace, even some “authority” sites that had previously been thought of as untouchable.

For a lot of webmasters, negative SEO was now a big concern.  If bad links could hurt your rankings, what was going to stop your competitors from creating thousands of bad links to your site?  As part of their dastardly plan, Google released their disavow tool.  The disavow tool allows webmasters to report bad links to their site, in the hope that Google won’t include those links when ranking their pages.  Google were effectively turning over responsibility for links to the site owner. If bad links were affecting your rankings, through negative SEO or some past backlinking “crimes”, you were now responsible for sorting it out.

So where does all this leave us today?

Well, Google are suspicious of all links unless the source is well known and trusted.  If a link appears in an article by a respected news source, then Google can be pretty sure it is a deserved link, and not placed there by a webmaster looking to boost his rankings.

In general, links on pages that have not established a level of trust or authority will always be treated with more suspicion by the search engines.  However, it is not just the page your link appears on that is important.  It is also how the link is constructed.  Here are some of the things that can affect how a link is treated by Google:

  • Is it a text link or an image link?
  • If it is an image link, does it make sense, or is it an obvious attempt to link to another page, especially on another website?
  • Is the link only on one page of the site, or is it on all pages of the site, e.g. in the page footer or sidebar.
  • Does the HTML used to create the link include a title element?  If so, is it a natural title tag or is it stuffed with keywords.
  • Does the HTML used to create the link include an ALT tag?  If so, is it stuffed with keywords or is it a description of the image?
  • Is there a CSS class associated with the link that might be used to hide the link from visitors?
  • If it’s a text link, is the anchor text a commercial term, or is the anchor text one that is used in a high percentage of links pointing at that page?  Maybe the anchor text is more natural, say the URL of the page being linked to, or its title?

As you can see.  Long gone are the days where you can create lots of links without thinking about them.

So is there any safe way to build links?

In recent months, a lot of webmasters have turned to guest blogging.  However, Matt Cutts (Google engineer) has recently said :


You can read more about Matt’s views on guest blogging over on his personal site.

As you can see, getting backlinks to your site is a lot more difficult than it use to be.

What are the best backlinks we can get?

Unfortunately for us, the best links to get are also the most difficult to obtain.

Want to know what they are?

They are the links that you have no control over!  They are the links other people use to link to your content without being asked.

Essentially, if you have control over an inbound link, it is going to be seen as a low quality link by Google, if they find out you control or placed the link.

So where does that leave the SEO in 2014 with regards to link building?

Well, pretty much where Google wanted it to be 10 –15 years ago.

Remember when they fed us the line to create quality content that other people want to link to?  It now seems like that is the best way to get natural inbound links that will stand the test of time.  While a lot of link building strategies do still work, Google are slowly but surely plugging the loopholes.  What is even worse for link-builders, is that Google have made it clear that you will be tried and judged by your past activities.  What works today, does work today, but tomorrow, or next month, or next year, it might get you penalised.

Isn’t it time we all go back to basics and concentrated on the one thing you know Google wants?  Quality content and providing your visitors with stuff they want to read, interact with, bookmark and share with their friends!  Either that, or find another source for your traffic.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

21 thoughts on “Backlinking in 2014

  • Darren

    Hi Andy,

    I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but the only problem is some niches and topics by their very nature are not easy to share or pass round on the social networks.

    Also, if you are a new webmaster, or entering a new niche, how do you get exposure in order to get the visitors and shares that come with and increase that exposure? Ok, you can try and reach out to other sites and try to do guest posts or get links and mentions that way, but then again that is exactly what Google and Matt Cutts say is bad practice.

    Add to this the fact that many big players are quite clearly engaged in bad and spammy link practices and the little guy is left with less and less choice.

    Personally I think the search results on Google as a whole were much better, more relevant and more varied a few years ago across many verticals. Now it seems that almost every keyword throws up Amazon, YouTube and Wikipedia for at least 5 spots. No doubt these are big domains with tremendously useful content, but I do not believe they are the best for almost every keyword. If you ask me, this is Google taking the easy option.

    You are right. Search engine traffic is certainly not what it used to be.

  • Bentley

    Hi Andy,
    Interesting insights as always. Your mention of Matt Cutt`s comment reminded me about another interesting article I read recently (on Jon Morrow`s `Boost Blog Traffic` site). He gives the impression that Matt backtracked a bit from his original comments. Anyway, here is the link (all-natural, just the way Google likes it! haha) if you are ok sharing it:
    Thanks for all you do!


  • Norm

    Hello Dr. Andy,

    Well we’re back to my postulation that if all we can’t manipulate the rankings, then how can we be successful Internet marketers? Good copy is not sufficient in itself to give one affiliate or Adsense site an edge over the other. It has been my anecdotal experience that relevant text + site popularity (hits) seems to be the ticket these days. And of the two, site popularity trumps good writing. If this is true, then the new guy is doomed.

    Andy you were preaching this stuff long before the slam of the screen door. I, on the other hand, was pushing the envelope with the old technology well beyond conventional limits….and succeeding somewhat. (To be clear, never black hat. Lots of gray hat, though.)

    But that’s all over now. And so is traditional Internet marketing, in my book. What Google gaveth, they tooketh away. You’re attitude towards this old style monopoly is much more forgiving than mine. Grrr!

    I would not presume on your courtesy to throw a link to my site here, but there is still one way to beat Google at their own algorithm and that is locally. A well done site focused on local content is still well received by our friend Google…no SEO tricks necessary. I wrote a course for just such a thing based on my long time community website which has been chugging along since 2002.

    In the PDF I lay out the whys and hows and give examples. Unfortunately for my humble self, it is not a popular purchase because the oldthink of Internet marketing is still cooking off. Folks are still buying those push button geewhizzers and get rich quick schemes.

    They are also still buying into the notion that making a lot of websites employing the old tricks is best when all you really need is one website done correctly. Folks are still chasing the gold just like I did…. But what they don’t realize is that Google has thrown up barbed wire around the best diggings any more. That glitter they see in the distance lays just beyond the Google mine field. Poof!

    So, I offer a way for a lad or lassie to make a living with just one site that Google likes. It works every time it is worked. But that’s the problem you see. It’s not an instant gratification kind of thing like a push button site or a Twitter tweet. My strategy mean good text, good site design, goals, a plan, and getting off the chair and meeting people. Not near as much fun as making spec sites all day long!

    At some point I finally realized that I was putting in 60 hours a week making sites for what amounted to a hobby. I LOVE building new sites and doing graphics and all that jazz. So, while I thought I was doing big things, conning Google, and making the next big winner, all I was doing was cheating myself out of time and success that I could ill afford to waste. But I was having all the fun!

    Andy, my guru friend, I just think you are tops. I have missed your articles lately. It’s always a rush to click whenever I see a new one in the inbox.

    And finally, whether you try my system, or you have one going for yourself, Andy’s Web Content Studio is still the absolute primo unfair advantage article writing software on the market. Yours truly just won a $100 prize for an article I submitted…using WCS as my unfair word processor. By golly!

  • Derric

    Well Andy, I guess Dr. Evoy has had it right all along. Creating high quality content designed to bring in the right kind of traffic that we can pre-sell and ultimately monetize while basically letting backlinks take care of themselves. That is exactly what Google want, and of course, going about adding the proper social signals that make sense.

    Thanks for the article. You’ve just reinforced what we webmasters need to be focusing our time on.


  • Mark

    Hi Andy,

    Great to hear from you again and thank you for the article.

    Honestly, no lie…, but as I was coming to the end of your piece and before you revealed the answer, I truly knew what was coming next. Two reasons I suppose, there aren’t many other options out there left! At least honest and upstanding ones that haven’t fallen victim since the last 2 years.

    And, This also echoes what Dan Theiss and Leslie Rhoades from SEO Braintrust now Marketer’s Braintrust kind of built their Link Liberation course around to a great extent ( hence the title)… liberating oneself with the traditional methods and just take the quality content and social mediums and have others do the linking for you…in a nutshell that is.

    Maybe in some way, one can look at this as a blessing in disguise….meaning, that we can now focus more on just the quality and don’t have to worry about the old ways of article distribution, guest posting, Web 2.0 properties, link wheels and the list goes on…..that was all very painstaking and tedious!

    Now, just focus on the content at hand and make sure it’s contagious for others to catch! Not as much offsite stuff so to speak…..let that take care of itself perhaps?

    Thanks for your time and effort Andy….very appreciative !

  • Kay Franklin

    Content will always be King.
    Andy, your WebStudio tool was years ahead of time!
    People search for something and they want to find quality information and Google wants to be able to provide that to those searching.
    So if you write quality content for your visitors then you automatically write content that Google wants.
    If you look at Google trends for back linking you will see that interest has declined over the past few years.
    However, if you look at the trend for content marketing then you’ll see a steep rise since 2013. Interesting stuff.

  • Paul Hartmann

    Hi Andy,
    You have spent more time in telling us what not to do. That is good. But I think being an expert in SEO of today we expect you tell us what we should do to achieve high PR in Google search results. In this regard you have sufficed with a couple of sentences saying go to basics. That is fine but can you guide us how we should get high PR in today’s scenario.

  • Bob

    Sorry to be a cynic – but what I see is that in any highly competitive topic category where there’s real money to be made on affiliate marketing or retail, it’s pay for play. Google gives top “natural” results to advertisers. SEO is pretty much over.

  • Philip

    Andy… Do you believe that Google’s brain trust will eventually go after PBNs (Private Blog Networks) where webmasters try to remove all footprints such as using a different IP address and registrant per site, no Google Webmaster Tools account for any site, etc? I have been contemplating whether or not to use this strategy which actually manipulates SEO and ranking a site when purchasing aged domains for money site and PBN with or without page rank. I can only surmise that Google doesn’t like this SEO strategy one bit but many webmasters, and I suppose you as well, are using this strategy nevertheless.

  • Glenn Reschke



    I’ve ALWAYS respected you and have bought a few of your products over the past seven years as proof of that respect. However, I do have an issue with your last comment when you wrote, “Isn’t it time we all go back to basics and concentrated on the one thing you know Google wants? Quality content and providing your visitors with stuff they want to read, interact with, bookmark and share with their friends!”

    Really!? Are you kidding Me???!!! Just quality content is all that’s necessary? That’s BS, Andy. It’s just NOT true. Only in part and certainly not for us bourgeois folks who can’t command large marketing budgets.

    Here’s my backstory. I’m not trying to get a link here but check out my website (made it with XSite Pro 1.6 and thus it still stands even though I now use WordPress for my other sites). I put it up in late Oct. 2007 and it’s been successful from day one. The ONLY backlinking I did was write EzineArticles and the traffic grew naturally, hitting a peak in Jan. 2013 with 68k unique visitors. For the last six months before Penguin, I was averaging at least 60k visitors a month. I was making superb money with AdSense and was quite happy with my success. In Feb. 2012, I was even offered $40,000 USD for the site but turned it down. I was also interviewed on the radio in Nebraska, USA and Roanoke, Virginia, USA twice regarding the claims made on the site.

    Back to the site, all the articles there, and I mean ALL, I personally researched and wrote myself. I have a lot of passion for medicinal herbs, health and fitness so the site was a labor of love and interest. I have literally received emails from all over the world from people asking me questions mostly. The irony is that I didn’t put up the site to make money, it just kind of happened on its own. Look at all the social media activity on my site. Bear in mind I didn’t put up those social media tools until about six months before Penguin.

    What’s ironic is that only the six months prior to Penguin did I bother to do any SEO minded link building of any consequence. I subscribed with a friend to BuildMyRank and used it diligently thinking I could get even better traffic. I dominated in Google often being at numbers 1, 2, 3 or 7 on any given day for the general keyword, “cayenne pepper” and I DOMINATED all the long-tail keywords as well.

    I actually was able to get in touch with a Google customer service person who told me sometime around 2008 or 2009 that if I wanted to get a site ranked to 1) read Google’s webmaster guidelines and 2) to “get links to your site.” (Of course, just getting an actual response from Google is like getting an audience with the Queen or the U.S. President — it’s almost near impossible.) So, with my other sites I did just that and was making a full-time income via my web marketing efforts. I wasn’t Jerry West rich (a well-respected web marketer), but I was doing okay.

    But then, April 24, 2012 came. AKA Penguin. Within two months, my rankings for my home page in Google disappeared. I still rank for the health benefits and side effects page and have a lot of stickiness on the site with visitors, but the rankings I used to crush are now gone.

    I bought your guide whose name escapes me as to how to resurrect a Penguin-hit site (BTW, I was not hit at all with Panda). I read it thoroughly and changed a few things on the site. I also ceased all marketing of the site. I’ve added some new articles here and there, but nothing else.

    Yet Google considered my website webspam? I did EVERYTHING they recommended and then they penalize me for it????!!!! That’s just wrong and hypocritical. Google is a bully. I almost use exclusively now for my searches as I so detest Google.

    My site was/is NOT webspam. How can it be wrong to do what they said, i.e., write good content and get backlinks, and then to penalize one for that?

    I despise Google as they are so hypocritical. I find it hypocritical that their tagline is, “Do no evil” but as has been reported in the media here in the States, they are themselves doing some very unethical things and they have the gall to criticize others and to hit sites like mine as “webspam”? You are parroting the party line of Google: content is sufficient; don’t engage in SEO. It’s galling.

    In closing, I want you to know I’m not railing at you. Again, I respect you and like you. You’ve emailed me a few times very quickly when I have had a few questions about Keyword Analyzer or with some of the other products I owned from you (Fat Content Creator), etc. I know you’re a good guy and I’d enjoy meeting you if that were ever to present itself. I’m just irritated by that comment. It’s just NOT true and it’s just not good enough to compete in the highly competitive world that is web marketing today. It’s just not Andy. I can’t afford using Google AdWords for traffic. It’s too expensive. Plus, the monetization model of that site is built on AdSense with a smidgeon of affiliate income. So, no offense meant to you — you’re a good bloke in my eyes. You’re just dead wrong on that, my friend.

    Glenn Reschke

    • Andy Williams Post author

      Hi Glenn
      I respect your opinion. A quick question. When you site was hit, did you get all of those spammy links removed that you built with Build My Rank and any other resources you used to build “cheap” links? Also, I wonder if you would be OK with me looking at it, and reporting back what I find in my newsletter as to the possible causes of your lost rankings?

  • Glenn Reschke

    Good points Darren. Google now favors large advertisers like Amazon and others. They also favor their own YouTube and of course Wikipedia. A friend of mine told me a few months ago that Google’s rankings are so commercial compared to Yahoo or Bing. This coming from a guy who has no interest in Web marketing at all. He mentioned that to me purely out of an end-user’s experience.

  • Dave Spencer

    You’ve been way ahead of this for years Andy. Topically relevant content using LSI keywords to research the topic and build authority content; develop the theme of the site is definitely the way to go. Do you think “private syndication” from quality sites the best way to build links now ? In the article you referenced from “Matt Cutts” he specifically mentions anchor text links from Articles and Press Releases. It seems to me a reference that “link sources” may serve actually as a penalty for a site, if they appear to be spammy or originating from suspect spam sources.

    Thanks Andy,

  • Norm

    Hi Glenn,
    I have been checking back from time to time to see the progress of this thread. Do you find it interesting that Andy used to get tons of posts and now so few? All the posts here are GOOD posts, (which indicates serious authors) but the volume is down. I’m pretty sure his mailing list is still as large as ever, I’m not sure if this is telling us something important or not…but I think it is.

    Frankly, I am seeing a shift to a Twitter instant gratification culture. In my humble opinion the old tried and true marketing ways going back to the earliest newspaper days are failing. I’m scratching my head on how to sell and promote to the new crowd.

    To the point. Your story is similar to mine down to the software, although I never had a massive hit like your pepper site. I know you have pondered all the possibilities endlessly. So, could it be something as simple as a Google human reviewer who is a pepper hater or somebody just having a bad day landed on your site? I know you have mulled on this.

    BMR gave a range of pretty good links in the day and like you said, you didn’t do it so much. Your text is original and not spun or swiped. Etc. When you disallow everything else it might come down to a rogue reviewer…which you can do nothing about. Possible?

    Moral: Don’t beat yourself up. Sometimes being right doesn’t make might. Google sees itself as either the fulfillment of Issac Asimov or the new J.P. Morgan…or both with Tammany Hall thrown in.

  • Glenn Reschke

    Great post. I enjoyed reading it. You make many great points. Oh, yes, I’ve pondered all the possibilities endlessly as to what I did wrong, right, what I could’ve done better, etc. It’s maddening. I don’t think a human reviewer would bother adjusting the site. I have thought about that but it doesn’t seem feasible to me. Relatively speaking, it was a small drop in their pool. Of course, I have emailed Google and lambasted them for their hypocrisy but I did it well after the fact — about six or nine months ago.

    BTW, your comparison of Google as a combination of J.P. Morgan and/or Tammany Hall is VERY clever! All that aside, I DO believe as Andy says that content is vital today. I have never doubted that, actually. The unspun, unfarmed or unswiped articles I hope is proof of that. I wrote it all and carefully researched it all like I would a grad school paper.

    Your thoughts on the “fast-food” or “Twitter-instant-gratification crowd” are well conceived.

    Regarding online marketing, depending on the model, tried and true principles of copywriting and advertising will always have a place, in my opinion. I think that’s where to start. Vince Lombardi, the great American football coach of the Green Bay Packers, used to take his team back to the basics when the team struggled, i.e., tackling, blocking, running the ball, and catching it. I think there is a lesson there. The model will dictate, e.g., an AdSense site versus a sales page, but the principles can be applied. Good content DOES help. I’m convinced of that. At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I’ve received scores and scores of compliments on my site. Visually, it’s very simple, but straightforward and easy to navigate — at least I think it is. We’ll see what Andy says (he’s going to do an autopsy on my site). It is the content that kept people going back to it. I have a significant degree of stickiness on the site, and that’s due to the content, I believe.

    As a totally unrelated side note, one of the maddening things regarding my site is that a lot of the content has been re-gurgitated. When I put the site up in late Oct. 2007, there were no sites on cayenne pepper. And certainly no articles by doctors or naturopathic folk. Now there is. If you’re going to quasi-plagiarize me, then at least have the decency to give me a brand link. But no. That’s one of the negatives about the Web — re-hashing of content. That is why Andy is dead on when he says that fresh content is so vital. I believe that. I don’t have his Web Content Studio (funds are tight for me right now) but if it can help one write more articles that are fresh and original, all the power to him. That’s why I now write “deep” articles like they are a grad school assignment complete with references and research so they stand out.


  • Sandeep Kumar

    Hi Andy
    I thought this article would be about back-links scope in 2014 as title suggested, but 70% part spend to explain back-links history…
    No doubt Google become much smarter than beginning, and taking serious steps to stop bad back links that manipulate the SERP, SO now question is how can we build the guanine links and answer is their in no way, if you build a link it is not genuine, so just get relax and make your website so good to get back-links itself, like Wikipedia, but all links on which you don’t have control are not genuine, Google already said that links without enough editorial content are spams, so always keep your eyes on your back links and remove them time to time. Off course you still have some ways to get genuine links. Matt Cutt says guest blogging is not spam if you do it in a limited amount, with good content and non commercial anchor tags, same thing applied with Press Release if it is not for advertising purpose.

    The problem many Websters facing these days is how to lift the penalty by penguin, manual actions and algorithmic, out of my two website one has receive manual action and other is receive algorithmic penalty, although i have removed as much bad-links as possible and disavow the rest But how can i make sure that Google has receive and accepted or rejecting my disavow request, Is my effort are enough or need some extra effort…

  • Norm

    Hi Glenn,
    One good post is worth 10 so-so posts. I read yours very carefully. I know when I’m seeing the real thing and you’re it.

    About Web Content Studio. Tight funds I understand. However, if you’re into writing articles, it’s a tool you should save up some butter and egg money to get.

    The dirty little secret, as Andy will tell you though, is that practiced writers such as yourself are already incorporating most of what you need to come up with a winner. Even so, WCS gives you that little edge. If you’re able to get it some day, you’ll see.

    After reading your post, I can still say that your story and mine have many similarities. A maddening thing is that I show you one site which (according to Google) ought to be bombed, and one which should be elevated. It’s crazy!

    Tell you what. I’m working on a new book series so I did a site in anticipation. I did it for the book, but also as an experiment. It’s the one that I think ought to generate a PR2, but it sets at PR0. Click my name and have a brief look. Perhaps when I add more content it will move up. Dunno. In the meantime, it sits near the top of page 1 on Bing and Yahoo, but like page 3 on Google for the primary key phrase. I guess we all still do well everywhere except Google.

    I just gave up on my IM pursuit after Penguin. Too many variables. Then Andy came along at my low point to gin me up to do what I always wanted to do anyway, which is write books. Ha. I figure after I’m dead I will be discovered. If you have any notion of it yourself, study up on Kindling. Andy has a dandy tutorial or two here.

    Besides having all the fun making sites, research, etc…the thing that sucked me into IM to start was the blank page. Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps..nothing to something. Later, beating the competition. Then Google scrambled the eggs. Ah well.

    If I haven’t said it already, your pepper site is a testament to the best tenants of Internet marketing and a study in the right way to make an authority site.

    Your fan,

  • Wendy

    I really appreciate you keeping us up to day, Dr. Andy, but wow is this ever frustrating. Google’s premise is that if a site is popular and has quality content, people will therefore link to it from other sites that are themselves well visible to Google. Probably most of my visitors arrive via their own bookmarks, come for specific info (that’s updated daily) and then leave. It’s not something they’re likely to want to link to from forums or other websites. It’s a popular site in its niche, but its popularity doesn’t always show itself in the ways Google is counting. Do you know if Google also keeps track of visits from browser bookmarks or if it counts them as part of the inbound links? Thanks.

    • Andy Williams Post author

      Google certainly monitor bookmarks, but I think that perhaps the most important thing you should concentrate on is to get your visitors to share your content to their friends and followers on social networks. This will result in links.

  • David

    Have been following your stuff many years ago and absolutely agree with what you wrote here. I bought a domain which align with our company name but I suspect that it was being spammed in the past thus banned by Google.

    For many months, I am not able to get it back into Index but after consistently create post and share it in FB, Pinterest, G+ and on my own website, it seems Google starting to accept it back again ( automatically ). The articles and content on the website are created by us to help our customers only without any thought of gaming Google algo and I didn’t even bother to set the on page optimization properly. All our traffic come from offline referrals.

    Hopefully, by posting content naturally will able to garner some traffic online in this competitive niche …

  • Stella

    Thank you for your post. Backlinking seems to be the biggest mystery. You could probably report on this 2-3 times a year and have more ideas of what to do or what not to do. I would like to see some information about the length of time it takes to get rid of a bad set of links through Google’s disavow program.