February 10, 2010
This week, I asked my awesome Twitter followers:
Do you build links for the traffic or for rankings?
DavidWallace: For the most part, rankings & link popularity but in some scenarios, traffic especially in 'nofollow' situations.
forestsoftware: To be honest, I look at incoming links for human traffic; if it helps rankings, all well and good.
JulieJoyce: Clients want it for rankings almost always, but I do it with traffic in mind anyway.
hugoguzman: Depends, but usually it's for rankings first and foremost.
annaslyter: I do it for both, try to get clients to see value of both too.
bk_cox: For the traffic associated with the rankings, but mainly 4 rankings.
_robh_: Generally for rankings, although we are trying to change this practice with changes in off-page strategies.
SEOHack: For a site with few links – SEO. a site with adequate links – traffic. In either case, I take branding into account too.
AlanBleiweiss: Same as with content – I write it for the visitor & SEO. Links for inbound traffic & SEO value. Also, on a 2nd tier of value, links help build brand awareness even if someone doesn't click on them.
oldwelshguy: Thanks to the dumb Google Algo, links must be gathered for ranking as well as traffic, so both really.
As to my thoughts, what oldwelshguy says really sums it up for me. While we should, ideally, be looking for links for the traffic, Google has caused everyone to be crazed about link building. Unfortunately, this is why people keep adding to the noise of the Internet with content that is created only to be used as "link bait."
So we swim in a sea of content that wouldn't have existed were it not for the fact that we need links. This isn't necessarily bad, if the content were truly awesome, but honestly, how much of it really is? Do we really care about the history of doorstops or awnings or paper clips? I think not.
How about you? Leave a comment below and let me know!
Want to participate in the Twitter Question of the Week? Follow @jillwhalen on Twitter.