The Value of a Link (or Why The Link Building Does Not Work Well)

At the dawn of the Web, when still almost nobody had a page, and when there were no blogs, the link served to make a reference to another document. At that time it was called hyperlink (hyperlink or hyperlink in Spanish), but it soon lost the prefix “hyper”. Simply, and without major implications, the links completed the content of a website with suggestions for content that could or could not be part of the web. This was told by Tim Berners-Lee with very good judgment in the year 1997 (if you love the history of the web, click on the previous link because you will enjoy), what has been the prehistory, almost, of the current Internet.

When Google was designed it took the links as an indicator of the importance of the website itself. The links from the page were taken into account, but especially the links to the page. The germ of this idea came from the world of scientific publication:

For teachers-particularly those in the hard sciences such as mathematics and chemistry-nothing is as important as having publications. Except, perhaps, be cited.

So what really ended up having value was the backlink, or the appointment. That appointment that nowadays, in Spain, is charged to the weight and thanks to a Government with null vision of future. Returning to the topic, from that moment the link became a currency, over time, until today, where the price of a link is sometimes exorbitant.

Why does nobody link me naturally?

The wishes of the founders of Google, in the first moment, were that the links served as a natural indicator of the value of the referenced page . That is, if a page with authority (they understood it in the academic sense) linked to another web page, it was giving value to its content. Simply, if a recognized entity made reference to any other entity, it provided recognition in a natural way.

This soon became corrupted by tens of thousands of pages and webmasters, who began executing massive link missions at their discretion. Google had to take action on the matter by varying its original idea, summarizing a lot, to arrive at today, in which the idea of ​​a natural link in the latest versions of the algorithm is fully reinforced.

The problem is that today no one links naturally.

The link building was built as an infallible technique (but it does not always work) to climb positions in the Google results pages, and many began to strive to get backlinks with different techniques, such as, entering directories, creating Link farms, indiscriminately requesting a link, making real spam in comments, and of course, paying to include a link in certain web pages.

When the truth is all that is to get links for a reason other than the original, which one day Google expected: to gain a link because someone thinks that what you tell deserves to be disseminated. And Google, with the passage of time, has been severely penalizing all the pages that used, from their point of view, bad practices.

Today we believe that Google is everything. We want to be the first in their ranking because that gives access to a multitude of visits, and visits give way to the faithful, and the faithful give way to buyers. We are subject to the tyranny of the click , we tend to amass hundreds of thousands of visitors so that the conversion rates throw us a few hundred purchases and that “the numbers come out”, instead of treasuring a thousand or ten thousand loyal customers, who buy assiduously and that they are “like family”.

We have gone from the neighborhood store to want to be the large commercial area, and soon we will realize that what really interests us is the neighborhood client. Will it be too late?