How Much Weight Do You Attach To Link Profile?

[Philondon]

With more recent (last 2-3 years) Google algo changes, link profiles have become an issue, where they were less so before.
Which means that when looking at more 'aged' domains/websites, the telltale signs of backlink software and comment bots are frequently there (or some other form of mass backlink creation), regardless of whether it is a decent site with good content, or a short term money maker with poor content.

I'm not ready to buy anything yet but I regularly run 'interesting properties' through a due diligence routine - which includes link checking on ahrefs and majestic, domain analysis on seomoz site explorer , etc. And I frequently find even the 'good looking properties' have poor link profiles (too many links from India, Asia, Russia and S America when they are English language sites, for example), often with too many links coming from too few domains. And a check on seomoz often reflects this state of affairs wiht a low 'moztrust' value and page/domain authority.

Google PR is, apparently, becoming obsolete, so PR 4, 5 and 6 domains are not necessarily the golden chalice they once were, and things like moztrust and link profile/quality may be a better way to estimate the authority or perceived quality of a prospective site - in an attempt to second guess MR Google, that is.

So what value/weight do you place on these things? Given that good quality link profiles take a hell of a lot more time and money to build than poor ones, how confident can you ever be that you can turn an established site's profile around before it, potentially, sinks into oblivion under?

[Thomas]

While link profile analysis is quite subjective (ie. what constitutes a "good" link) it's probably in the top 3 things I *personally* look at when buying a site, especially if it has a high reliance on search traffic. I know some buyers who don't care at all, and others who look at it very seriously, so it depends on your experience and expectations.

One of the other important things to do when looking at the link profile is establish how the links were sourced in the first place. Do they look organic? Paid? Spammy? If paid, are these costs disclosed (usually not)?

I wouldn't always avoid buying sites with a high reliance on search traffic if the link profile was poor - but I have been doing this for years so know what to expect. "Turning the site around" is definitely not something I would be looking to do if I was, like you (from what I've read) a first time buyer. Stick to something safer and expect to pay for quality (don't hunt for bargains as a first time buyer, it's a recipe for disaster).

[Kay]

[Edit: this was a reply to Phil before I'd seen Thomas's post. I had to go and search for the searchenginewatch link.]

Great question!

Sorry this is a bit rushed but here goes anyway...

I'd say the importance of a link profile depends more on its ability to bring in traffic direct from the links rather than its ability to influence Google's SERPs. Now that it's possible to get a better ROI from social activities than from traditional SEO (which, let's face it, nearly always concentrated on doing well in G), lots of people these days are caring less about SERPs and traffic from Google. (Some people on EP have been saying this for years.)

It's interesting how even some of the leading search engine authorities are blogging more these days about traffic from sources other than G. Here's an example:
http://searchenginewatch.com/article...Without-Google

Search engines? Maybe in a few years the Google god (how dare you call him Mr Google?) will be a historical relic. Search engines will still be of huge importance, but not in the old G sense. Even a couple of years ago, Amazon had apparently already overtaken G as the consumers' SE of choice.

A good link profile could have a great value, but if it's nothing more than a means of pleasing G's algo at any given time I'd not be excited by it as a means of predicting future income.

[Philondon]

Thanks Thomas and Kay for your helpful replies.

I must admit I'm rather cautious about social link profiles, more so than website backlinks, because they are so easy to falsify and less easy to assess. For example, many people on Facebook will 'like' a page or site one day and never visit it again. Popular pages can continue to be popular or can die a death with thousands of 'likes' but no actual traffic. Also, it is easy enough to buy 'likes' and bump up perceived value,especially when bought 'likes' and 'one-day likes' behave much the same way - ie, they sit there doing nothing and providing no traffic.

At least with falsified website backlinks you can make a judgement about how they were created and whether they provide any value, Mrs Google PR-wise or traffic-wise. (See what i did there?)

But on balance, perhaps I should steer more towards Thomas's alternate advice and stop looking for bargains and start looking for 'safe bets': Any ideas where I might look for one of those? (Flippa is proving rather too demanding on my time!)

[Thomas]

Thanks Thomas and Kay for your helpful replies.

I must admit I'm rather cautious about social link profiles, more so than website backlinks, because they are so easy to falsify and less easy to assess. For example, many people on Facebook will 'like' a page or site one day and never visit it again. Popular pages can continue to be popular or can die a death with thousands of 'likes' but no actual traffic. Also, it is easy enough to buy 'likes' and bump up perceived value,especially when bought 'likes' and 'one-day likes' behave much the same way - ie, they sit there doing nothing and providing no traffic.

At least with falsified website backlinks you can make a judgement about how they were created and whether they provide any value, Mrs Google PR-wise or traffic-wise. (See what i did there?)

But on balance, perhaps I should steer more towards Thomas's alternate advice and stop looking for bargains and start looking for 'safe bets': Any ideas where I might look for one of those? (Flippa is proving rather too demanding on my time!)

Sounds sensible. Social due diligence is always tricky - I agree with you that is difficult to figure out what is legitimate and what is not.

I also agree with your conclusion on falsified website backlinks - generally not that hard to make a judgement call on their quality.

In terms of where to look, it depends what your budget is and what exactly you want to buy? Be careful where you get advice/read - there are plenty of people willing to offer "free" advice but haven't even invested $50k of their own cash in buying sites, especially those who claim there is an easy way to pick up under-valued sites (hint: there isn't).

[DomainMagnate]

While link profile analysis is quite subjective (ie. what constitutes a "good" link) it's probably in the top 3 things I *personally* look at when buying a site, especially if it has a high reliance on search traffic. I know some buyers who don't care at all, and others who look at it very seriously, so it depends on your experience and expectations.

One of the other important things to do when looking at the link profile is establish how the links were sourced in the first place. Do they look organic? Paid? Spammy? If paid, are these costs disclosed (usually not)?

Same here, it's one of the first things I check. Especially for relatively new sites which rankings increased lately. The main thing is to see if the site had a lot of spammy/paid links added recently which can be dangerous long term. It's a good prediction of future seo traffic trends for a site.