Search engines have always touted that so-called "natural link

[zihadhasan012]

Those that are independently created, editorially given and meant to serve as an honest recomendation for a URL's worthiness are the most desirable and positive kinds of links. This is precisely the type of link attracted by linkbait, in precisely this manner. Viral content is launched, promoted and hopefully seen by individuals who may like it enough to share it and link to it. There's little else on the web that can attract "natural" links.


Linkbait is "great content" - the very thing engines and engineers are constantly recommending as the core strategy for good SEO. To go against this principle would be to invalidate more than a decade turkey mobile phone numbers database of advice. When linkbait isn't "great" it tends not to attract links and the engines' work is done for them. Like anything in the SEO world, there are higher and lower risk methods for engaging in this practice. Former SEOmozzer Matt Inman wrote a post highlighting some of the most dangerous implementations of manipulative link attraction, but these are most definitely the exception rather than the rule.


A rough risk scale might look something like: No Risk - Production of relevant (on-topic with the site's offerings) viral content with no manipulative link schemes promoted ethically and organically on and off the web. Low Risk - Production of relevant viral content with potentially manipulative promotion (paying those with powerful social media accounts to help "push" the content into visibility). This is low risk in my opinion because the links are still created and given organically and editorially.