Are Blog Links Dead?

Someone was disputing whether links from blogs were efficient for ranking purposes. In his opinion, blog links were pretty much dead. In his opinion, blogs were burned out as a link source and were being discounted by Google, this year's version of the guestbook link. That point of view is not without foundation, there are solid reasons for arriving at that conclusion. Blog links have been abused in every possible way, so it's no wonder some people assume blogs have been played out and demoted by the search engines.

A blog is a website just like any other, including sites hosted on the dot edu and gov domains. I think the big idea some people have a hard time getting their minds around is that web pages hosted on the dot edu domains are no better than sites hosted on blogger or a dot com TLD. The magic isn't in the domain, it's in the backlinks. This holds true for directories, blogs, wikis, and any other permutation.

Why blogs matter
Many blogs, especially popular blogs, are created by hobbyists who are passionate about the subject and create worthwhile content. Other bloggers and websites, including government and media sites, link to them. As with any other web page, links follow the content. So it's a no-brainer that a link from a quality blog will pass on good ranking power.

At SES San Jose 2007, the strongest buzz that week was about how great Blogsvertise was. To judge from the positive feedback coming from top people in the industry, blogsvertising is the hottest trend at this moment, affirming the positive power in blog links today.

Gross generalizations sometimes miss the point when referencing links. Whether it's praising dot edu links to trashing blog links, generalizations break down. I can't say it enough: When judging the efficacy of a link from any site, a link is only as good as its backlinks.

About the Author
martinibuster lives in the SF Bay Area and yes, I do take clients. Contact me at roger @ martinibuster.com

Time to Throw Away the Black Hat?

In a recent WebmasterWorld thread about link strategies, ken_b stated he was inclined to think of link building in terms high and low risk rather than colors of hats. I agree with him. Discussions tethered to colored hats are really about what Google prefers and not about the efficacy of any particular link building strategy. The moment someone invokes hats, the discussion changes from what does and does not work to what Google does and does not approve of. It narrows the discussion. I'm not saying it's an invalid discussion. I'm only noting that people should be aware that the discussion has suddenly become limited.

What would Google Say?
The discussion of what Google prefers is a legitimate one. But I'm not certain everyone is conscious that it's a narrowly defined discussion that can be filed under: What Would Google Say? Understanding what Google says is important because it's useful to know and understand boundaries. But those boundaries are artificial constructs, they are only ideas, propaganda if you will, not timeless truth or ethics on the level of right and wrong, good or bad. It is right or wrong relative to Google. But webmasters are not Google.

Towards a meaningful dialogue
In the real world, from the hundreds of webmasters I've personally met and discussed this with, people are more interested in defining and understanding high and low risk strategies. While Google's gravity still exerts a pull on the discussion, webmasters are interested in the success rate of any given link building strategy and the concomitant risk involved. Virtually all link building stategies contain a risk, even seemingly benign acts such as swapping links carry a potential downside. The discussion may become more meaningful, therefore, if the paradigm of black and white hats is set aside in favor of High and Low Risk strategies.

What do you say? Is it time to throw away the white hat/black hat paradigm?