On Monday, we shared a bold example from Bing's Duane Forrester about what good links are versus bad links.
It was bold because Duane from Bing basically said the only real valuable links are the ones you don't know you are getting in advance. Meaning, the other links you get, can maybe get you in trouble or not help you. So if you write a good article, maybe something a little better than this article, and you know you'll get links out of it, then that is bad? If you build a useful and fun tool and you know you'll get links out of it, maybe that is bad?
Of course not. But Duane is making a point. And I think we all get his point.
Google's Matt Cutts, the head spam man in the world of search, said on Twitter that he liked or "enjoyed" his definition. That maybe pre-knowledge of links is by definition, an unnatural link.
Is Google endorsing the definition of an unnatural link is a link that you know you will get before you get it? Then does it mean, if you know you are getting a link from source X or does it mean that you know that an effort will result in getting links in general? I'd assume source X would be a better definition?
Forum discussion at Twitter.
