🩱 🚒:: Link Building (Copycat) Plan? :: 🚒 So, the outline is... *) Most comp. links suck/are spam 1) Get a list of Comp. links 2) Remove social, bad site etc. links 3) Note destination types (HP, Prod/Srvc etc.) +) Note they say "content formats" (first time!) - it's getting adoption :D 4) Note the Link Text types/ratios (and match them) 5) Note source type of link (GP, Review etc.) 6) Calculate "the gap" (theirs minus yours, divided by timeframe) 7a...) "Strategies" for outreach No surprise ... there are some issues here! . :: Focus on "SEO Links" 1) Ideally - you should be focusing on links that generate qualified/valid traffic! If it gives you an SE Ranking boost - Bonus! 2) Ok, so focusing on SEO ... you should still not ignore all of the source types ... (as you can mask paid/arranged links within bursts of social links etc.!). :: Destination Distribution Seriously - no one should be copying other peoples distribution type (n% of links to HP, n% to about-us, n% to product-x-42 etc.). 1) That's just silly 2) What makes you sure they didn't do the same, and copy someone else? (oh look, all 15 of these sites have exactly 60% of links to their home page.....) 3) ... and if they are getting spammy with links, you're blindly copying them! :: Anchor Text Distribution *facepalm* See immediately above! :: Link Source types This completely ignores things like Time, Events, Resources, competitor size etc. Are you really going to get the same link types are HP or Nike, or a company 3x your size, or that's been around 10 years longer? It also ignores "value" (which I'll hit again in a second). :: Monthly target *sigh* Yes, because building n-links every n-period isn't suspicious in the slightest! (esp. when you're not creating social links etc.!!!) And again with the "value". This is NOT a numbers game. It is NOT "they have 500 links, we have 100, so we need 401 more links to beat them" !!! It's the values of the links that counts (quality over quantity). (And avoid the logic of "acquiring" the more valuable links first ... again, a little suspect.) - As per normal - the bare bones are there (they should be - this is a fairly standard approach (and it shows)). But as per above, things like: * obvious patterns * ignoring certain sources * ignoring link value are also common mistakes. So ... :: Use traffic data When/where possible - look at the traffic estimates for a site, add them to your sheet. :: Use audience data When/where possible - look at the user/audience base, and not how close/aligned they are to your ICP/targets on your sheet. :: Use value metrics Look, I know, they aren't what G (or B etc.) use, but they are "directionally descriptive", so add those to the sheet too. :: Use link-age data If at all possible, note how long that link has been around, and add that to the sheet (n-months or n-years etc.). :: Don't ignore "low value" I know I said to note the value (PR equivalent and topicality) ... ... but that isn't so you can cut/ignore all links from sites below 50 etc. The reality is - you should have links from various "levels" of site (look at the distribution of comp. links across site scores, you can often spot patterns because there isn't a "natural sequence" (x links, then y links, then z links ... which is what tends to happen organically)). It's also worth remembering that little old "only 20" site, may well become a 35 or 50 over the next year or two! :: Note nofollow/blocked Interestingly enough, this didn't get a mention from Nick? I don't know if G implemented their "we decide to follow or not" approach, or if nofollow still means G ignore it for value passing - but make a note if the link is nofollowed. And if they use a redirect/outbound-filter, check if that is followable (not passing through a disallowed file or noindex page). :: Prioritise by business/opportunity You should have pages you want to more users visiting (bigger margins, convert better, or stock you need cleared etc.). Those pages should also have "supporting content". These are what would normally be prioritised. (you can also do it by ranking opportunity (nudge up a spot or two to get more traffic (because it's not like AIO is eating it all!).) You can then sub-sort by type/value etc. Then you pick a few target pages, and look to build links to multiple over a time-frame (don't build n-links to page-54, then build n-links to page-55 ... duh!) :: Mask your efforts If you're going to go around building links, you darn well might as well do it properly, and that includes making some noise to help hide it. Socialising, getting others talking about your content etc. - is a darn good way of making acquisitions look normal. :: Mind "link inserts" How G has not hammered this yet ... I don't know. But having a link swapped into a page ... is a little "odd". Personally - it's either got to be a significant update to the source (not just link-switching, or rewording a bit), or a new page/piece. :: Have stuff worthy of links! And in the majority of cases, that means content formats (it's getting trendy!) that appeals to Peers and/or Media. The sad reality is - most consumers (B2B/B2C) don't usually link to suppliers/servicers etc. (And when they do - it's usually via Social/Community sites etc! (you know, the ones Nick says to ignore ;)).) So have templates, cheat-sheets, resource lists, data, analysis etc. ... on your site, and cut-back/variants to distribute, use for GP'ing or CM'ing etc. :: Freshen older pieces If you're going to build links to older content, you should do one of two things: a) RePromote it (social (again!)) or b) Refresh it These give a little more validation on to how/why it would suddenly get links, when it's been sat there for months/years. (You can also look at GSC/GA data, and check for pages that have recently had traction/visits!) There's other bits, but I think that's more than enough to cover most of the holes... - ... and, as it's 2025 ... :: It's not just the links you want! You want "brand mentions", you want "unlinked mentions", you want ... ... no, sorry, I just can't use all the buzzwordbollocks. You want consistent messaging. You want positive framing. You want quotes, citations, references, associations between your (company/site/brand/product/service) name, and the topic/issue/solution etc. As well as a link - if at all possible (hell, two birds with one bush, right? (that's a "malapropism" by the way :D)) #SEO #LinkBuilding

1/? 🔥:: This is going to upset some folk... ::🔥 ... but you're not talking about #SEO. >>>

10/? But I don't expect most SEOs to know what they should do for #ORM - the same way I don't expect most SEOs to know how to rank on YT etc., because they aren't really SEO, there's just a few overlaps. Get it? Sibling fields. Related roles. They aren't SEO. >>>