Backlink Appreciation Criterion

It is a nonsense to appreciate a website by backlinks.

You have a new Website and want to optimize it (SEO). You need some backlinks from high rank websites. Webmasters would accept to put a link to your website if they have a benefit from this link.

The benefit can be a useful resourse for their users and a point of appreciation from search engines – in the past, having a list of resources on your Web page could increase your ranking. Now, this is not a benefit anymore.

Anybody can make a big list with high rank websites as resources. For their users?… If your website has a lower rank, why they should use it as resource? They will only put a link to your site if you pay.

If you pay and receive a backlink from that highrank website, where is the correctness of this action? You deceive both the users of the website that gives you a backlink and your users, because they don’t know you have paid to gain a better place on SERP.
What’s the point with the backlinks?

If you have a high ranking website, and the content from your Web page is not so good as other content from other website’s page (which is not yours). Do you think is correct search engines to recommend users the poor content only because that website have more backlinks?

Why the website owners have to run for backlinks instead create valuable content? Not the backlinks are the content, this is why backlinks must not have a value for website ranking.

My simple conclusion is that search engines need those bloody links only to ease their work and not for users. The webmasters work hard to create links in the hope they will see the website on SERP. They do a voluntary work to help search engines to find with ease other the websites. It’s not fairplay and creates an entire industry, mostly artificial and unuseful to users.

As a website administrator you have to work hard and spend money for some bloody backlinks. I can buy advertisement where I want and if I want instead to look for ranks.

I found pages with high rank and 10 words of content or less. How correct is that?

In my opinion the most correct work was at the begining of Internet, when Web directories had human operators to harvest Web addresses manually.
How can search engines consider unnatural the acquisition of many backlinks in a short period of time?

Maybe I start an advertising campaign and many webmasters will know about my website in the same time and will want to make a link to my site. What is not natural here? Why should I schedule the link building campaign in order not to bother search engines? Maybe I do not have enough time to think about links everyday.

Penalized for having big content posted in a short period of time.
I speek from my experience. If you upload many articles at once you get penalized by search engines. Why? They claim that care about users. Maybe I write some articles in a vacation and when I come back I want to publish them quickly. What is wrong? Search engine should make my schedule of posting in order to keep my page rank? It’s not a dance to keep a rythm. It’s a creative work and depends on my free time.

The search engines have their own appreciation criterions for their own benefit. I know they provide a free service and is their right to use some criterions.

The evaluation of a website must be done by content, accesibility, usability and users votes. Everything must be public. No secret algorithms.
The popularity is not by links but is by visitors number.

The votes could not be very relevant if we think to websites owners. They will normally give negative votes to their competitors.
If one give a positive vote to other competitor could be suspected to be interested to do that.