Dispatch
What Is Link Building? Earning Links That Build Authority
Link building is the practice of getting other websites to link to your own. In search engine terms, an inbound link (a "backlink") functions as a signal: when one site...
On this page
Link building is the practice of getting other websites to link to your own. In search engine terms, an inbound link (a “backlink”) functions as a signal: when one site links to another, it’s implicitly saying “this page is relevant enough, or useful enough, to point my visitors toward.”
That idea has a specific history. Google’s original ranking system, PageRank, treated links as something close to votes, weighting them by the authority of the linking page rather than counting every link equally. Google still describes PageRank as one of the ranking systems that helps it understand how pages relate to each other, alongside many other systems that now factor into ranking. Links haven’t gone away as a signal, but they sit inside a much larger, more language-and-relevance-driven system than they did in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when a high raw link count could move rankings almost on its own.
This guide covers what link building actually involves: why links matter, the tactics that hold up over time, what Google explicitly classifies as a violation, and how to think honestly about effort and timelines without resorting to invented statistics.
Why links still matter
Search engines need some way to discover new pages and to gauge which pages other publishers and writers consider worth referencing. Links serve both purposes: they’re a discovery mechanism (Google has said plainly that links remain one of the ways it finds pages on the web in the first place) and a relevance signal (a page that earns links from topically related, editorially independent sites is harder to fake than a page that simply claims authority about itself).
What’s changed is how much weight any single link carries relative to everything else Google now evaluates, including content quality signals, topical depth, user experience, and increasingly, AI-assisted relevance matching. Link building today is better understood as one input into a much larger system rather than a lever that moves rankings by itself.
Link-building tactics that hold up
The tactics below all share one trait: the link is something another publisher chooses to give because the linked page genuinely earns it, not something purchased, automated, or extracted through deception.
| Tactic | What it involves | Best suited for |
|---|---|---|
| Content-driven link earning | Publishing original research, data, tools, or reference material that other sites cite naturally because it's useful | Sites with the resources to produce genuinely original assets |
| Digital PR | Pitching a newsworthy story, data finding, or expert angle to journalists and publications | Brands with a timely hook, survey data, or expert commentary worth covering |
| Resource-page outreach | Finding existing "useful links" or "resources" pages in your niche and suggesting your page as a relevant addition | Niche sites with genuinely useful, evergreen reference content |
| Broken-link building | Finding dead links on relevant pages and suggesting your live, related content as a replacement | Sites with content that closely matches what the broken link used to point to |
| Journalist source-request outreach | Responding to reporters and publications actively looking for expert quotes or data for a story they're writing | Subject-matter experts who can offer a genuinely useful quote, not generic commentary |
| Legitimate guest contribution | Writing a genuinely useful, non-templated article for a relevant publication, with a link included because it serves the reader, not because it was a condition of the placement | Writers and brands with real expertise and an existing relationship with the publication |
None of these tactics guarantee a specific number of links, a specific timeline, or a specific ranking outcome. What they have in common is that the link is a byproduct of something genuinely useful existing, not the direct goal of a transaction.
What Google classifies as a link scheme
Google’s spam policies for Google Search explicitly define “link spam” as links created primarily to manipulate ranking, and they list specific practices that count as violations regardless of how they’re dressed up. Practices Google names directly include:
- Buying or selling links, or exchanging money, goods, services, or even a free product in return for a link
- Excessive reciprocal link exchanges (“link to me and I’ll link to you”) done purely for cross-linking rather than because the link serves a reader
- Using automated programs or services to generate links to a site
- Requiring a link as a condition of a contract, terms of service, or similar agreement without giving the linked party the option to qualify the link
- Advertorials, sponsored posts, or guest posts on other sites that include links with optimized, keyword-stuffed anchor text, when payment was involved and the link isn’t properly qualified
- Large-scale article campaigns or guest-posting services distributed across many sites purely to build links rather than to genuinely inform that publication’s readers
When a link involves any kind of payment, sponsorship, or compensation, even an indirect one like a free product in exchange for coverage, Google’s own guidance is to mark it with rel="sponsored"; user-generated links such as forum or comment links should use rel="ugc"; and any link you don’t want to vouch for should use rel="nofollow". Google’s documentation on qualifying outbound links covers exactly when each attribute applies, and as of Google’s 2019 update to how it treats these attributes, they function as hints to Google’s systems rather than absolute directives, but using them correctly is still the documented, compliant way to disclose paid or user-generated links.
If you end up with a bad link profile
Most sites never need to actively intervene in their own backlink profile. Google’s own help documentation for the disavow links tool is direct about this: it says in most cases Google can assess which links to trust without extra guidance, and explicitly warns the tool is an advanced feature that can hurt a site’s performance if used incorrectly. Google recommends disavowing links only when a site has received a manual action for unnatural links, or when there’s a clear, identifiable pattern of spammy or purchased links pointing at the site that can’t be removed by asking the linking site directly.
A few honest points worth stating plainly, since this is an area where unsourced specifics get repeated as fact across the industry:
- There’s no official, published timeline for how long it takes a new link to influence rankings, or for a disavow file to fully take effect. Google’s own guidance simply says it can take “a few weeks” for a disavow submission to be incorporated as Google recrawls and reprocesses the relevant pages.
- There’s no official percentage or count that defines a “safe” versus “risky” link profile. Treat any article that states a precise percentage threshold for what makes a link profile look natural with skepticism unless it links to where that number comes from.
A practical way to evaluate any link opportunity
Before pursuing a link, a short, honest checklist tends to be more useful than chasing a target number of backlinks:
- Would this link exist if no one asked for it, because the content is genuinely worth referencing?
- Is the linking site topically relevant to the page being linked to, not just any site willing to publish a link?
- Is any compensation involved, directly or indirectly, and if so, is the link properly qualified with
rel="sponsored"orrel="ugc"? - Does the anchor text read naturally in context, rather than being stuffed with the exact keyword you want to rank for?
- Would you be comfortable with this link, and how it was obtained, being reviewed manually by someone at Google?
Measuring whether link building is working
Rather than tracking raw link counts, the more durable signals to watch are the diversity of referring domains (many links from one site carry far less value than the same number of links from many independent, relevant sites), the topical relevance of the sites linking to you, and whether organic traffic and rankings to the linked pages move in a direction consistent with the content’s actual quality and relevance, not just the existence of new links.
Link building, done honestly, is slow, uneven, and resistant to shortcuts, by design. The tactics that hold up over years are the ones where the link is a side effect of having built or written something worth referencing, not the product being purchased.