It’s not that adding more links hurts your site’s rankings

[Samiul7921]

I still call it Twitter. But anyway, I've seen some people say, "Oh, in that case you should explicitly disavow all your links to lower your ratio that way." I don't think that's right. There are a lot of question marks over what the Disavow tool does at all these days. But even putting that aside, I think it’s more about the fact that you need a certain amount of real brand strength to fully benefit from your links.

Or at least that’s not my intuition here. Don’t say, “Oh, well, if it’s not a content signal, I can just write my useless, weak, garbage content and it’s still going to be about unrelated stuff. It doesn’t matter what I put azerbaijan mobile phone numbers database on my site.” No, that’s the wrong conclusion. Whether it’s updating useful content or not, there are a lot of reasons to think that having genuinely useful content can help, not least of which is that people will have a better impression of your brand, more demand for your brand if your site generally has useful content.

It’s going to filter out one way or another. Finally, don’t say, “Oh, well, if we think that navigational search, branded search, and brand demand as Google sees it, and traffic, if we think that all of that might be important, then obviously I need to invest in click farms.” That’s the wrong conclusion. I have no idea if that can work sometimes. It might. But I’m pretty sure Google would think about it.