Thread: Backlink Relevant Content Importance

Has anyone taken the time to get factual data that shows a back link WITH relevant content vs. a back link with NO relevant content is really that much better as a back link? Or is the back link pr more important?

I hear a lot of conflicting information.

I've seen Matt Cutts confirm a number of times how baclinks from relevant pages are more valuable. I've never heard of anyone try to argue otherwise.

If you watch the SEO Academy videos (its like $299). A person claims relevant content from high pr ranks is not that important. The link is the most important and it does not matter what the content is. He was positive on this and repeated it many times. THEN Later in the videos another person says the opposite.

Since Matt Cutts is the closest thing to the word of God on Google's algorithm, I would take his word for it. But since also they have contradicted themselves in those videos you are watching, I think you should maybe try contacting them/the SEO Expert Academy about why 2 things are stated in the videos that completely oppose each other.

I am convinced that a link within a written and long to a given topic related text has more value as a nacked link, thats for sure. Google is paying more attention to quality content and to this belong a text where to put the links.

Relevant links are always better than non relevant back links and I have come to know many time that relevant links give better index result than non ones.

Originally Posted by paddy12

Relevant links are always better than non relevant back links and I have come to know many time that relevant links give better index result than non ones.

i agreed with that statement.. if you have health website, then you point it to auto blog, i don't think people will look at it.. and same goes with google also