Are backlinks really a minor signal compared to the hundreds of other Google ranking factors?

Why does Google downplay the significance of backlinks in its official statements?

Google has a vested interest in discouraging manipulative practices centered around the massive acquisition of links. Since Penguin, the algorithm punishes artificial link schemes — purchases, PBNs, massive exchanges. By publicly downplaying the importance of backlinks, Google pushes SEOs towards more holistic strategies that are harder to bypass.

Let's be honest: stating that a signal exists among hundreds of others doesn't mean it weighs 1/100th. Some signals have a marginal impact, while others are structural. Backlinks remain a pillar of PageRank and domain authority, but their effectiveness depends on their context: thematic relevance, source authority, anchor text, position on the page.

What are these 'hundreds of other signals' mentioned by Google?

Google has never published a comprehensive list, but we can categorize these signals into broad families: authority (backlinks, mentions, citations), relevance (content, semantics, entities), user experience (Core Web Vitals, mobile usability), freshness (updates, news), behavioral signals (CTR, dwell time — although Google officially denies using them directly), E-E-A-T signals (expertise, authority, trust).

Each query activates a specific mix of signals. A news search will prioritize freshness, a YMYL query (health, finance) will heavily weigh E-E-A-T, and a transactional search will favor user experience and commercial signals. Therefore, the relative weight of backlinks varies according to intent.

Does this statement challenge the importance of link building?

No. It challenges a monolithic and simplistic view of SEO. Backlinks still have a critical function: transmitting authority, facilitating content discovery through crawling, and anchoring a domain's legitimacy on a theme. Without quality backlinks, ranking on competitive queries remains difficult, if not impossible.

What Google is pointing out is the risk of overinvesting in link building at the expense of other factors. A site with 1000 spammy backlinks and mediocre content will never stand up to a competitor with 50 relevant links, solid content, impeccable UX, and coherent E-E-A-T signals. Balance matters more than sheer quantity.

• Backlinks remain a major signal, but their relative weight varies according to the query context and the site's maturity.
• Google values strategic diversity: content, technical, UX, and E-E-A-T must advance in parallel.
• Exclusive link building exposes one to detectable manipulation (artificial link profiles, over-optimized anchors, suspicious velocity).
• The effectiveness of a backlink depends on its context: source authority, thematic relevance, editorial placement, natural anchor.
• For YMYL or competitive queries, backlinks maintain a structural weight — they cannot be ignored.

Does this statement truly reflect observed practices in the field?

Yes and no. In highly competitive markets (finance, health, insurance, mainstream e-commerce), backlinks remain a major differentiator. Sites ranking on the first page consistently have strong link profiles. Claiming one can do without link building in these verticals is illusory.

On the other hand, in low-competition niches or queries with clear informational intent, we do indeed observe well-structured, intent-optimized content with few backlinks that perform well. Google values semantic relevance, freshness, and internal E-E-A-T signals (identified authors, citations, transparency) more in these cases. [To be verified]: Google has never communicated a quantified weighting by vertical or query type.

What nuances should be added to this statement?

Splitt talks about 'hundreds of signals', which is technically correct but masks a reality: not all signals carry the same weight, and some are variations of the same concept (e.g., exact vs. partial match anchor text, dofollow vs. nofollow backlinks with editorial context, etc.). Adding signals to inflate the figure is misleading.

A second nuance: saying that focusing solely on backlinks is 'easy to manipulate' is accurate but implies that all backlinks are suspicious. However, a natural, contextual editorial link from a reputable media source is precisely the type of signal Google values. The issue is not the backlink itself, but the method of acquisition (mass purchasing, spam, PBNs, artificial exchanges).

In what cases does this rule not apply?

On new domains, backlinks play a disproportionate role. Without them, crawling is limited, indexing is slow, and domain authority is non-existent. A site can have the best content in the world, but if Google doesn't discover it or doesn't trust it initially, it will remain invisible. Backlinks then serve as a bootstrap for authority.

Another case: highly competitive queries with significant commercial value (insurance, credit, real estate, betting). Here, all players already align on-page and technical signals. Differentiation is made on external authority — hence backlinks. Claiming they are just one signal among others on these SERPs is an angelic view.

What should be done concretely to balance your SEO strategy?

First, audit the current distribution of your efforts. If 80% of your SEO budget goes to link building and 20% to content/technical/UX, you are unbalanced. The goal is to achieve a 360° coverage: quality content that meets intent, visible E-E-A-T signals, optimized Core Web Vitals, clean technical architecture, and quality backlinks to anchor authority.

Next, prioritize natural editorial backlinks over quantity. A link from a reputable media source, contextual, with natural anchors, is worth more than 50 footer links or directory entries. Invest in press relations, content marketing, original data studies, thematic partnerships — anything that generates links without direct financial compensation.

What mistakes should be avoided in this diversified approach?

The first mistake: neglecting link building on the grounds that it is 'just one signal among others'. In competitive markets, you will never rank without quality backlinks. Balance doesn’t mean abandoning one lever but avoiding making it the only one.

The second mistake: believing that all signals are equal. Some are structural (backlinks, content, E-E-A-T), while others are marginal (meta keywords, exact keyword density). Prioritize based on the observed impact on your SERPs, not based on a theoretical checklist. Lastly, avoid link profiles that are too uniform (same anchors, same types of sites, suspicious velocity) — this is a signal of manipulation for Google.

How can you check if your site is balanced?

Compare your profile to that of your direct competitors in the top 3. Analyze their backlinks/dominant authority/content quality/E-E-A-T signals ratio. If you have as many (or more) backlinks but are not ranking, the issue lies elsewhere: content, technical, UX, or behavioral signals.

Use Search Console to identify the pages that receive impressions but few clicks — a sign that the intent is not being well served or that the UX dissuades visitors. Audit the Core Web Vitals on your strategic pages. Ensure your authors are identified, with bio and visible legitimacy. These optimizations can be complex to orchestrate alone, and it may be wise to engage a specialized SEO agency for personalized support, especially if you are juggling multiple improvement axes at once.

• Audit the current distribution of your SEO efforts (link building vs content vs technical vs UX) and rebalance as necessary.
• Prioritize the quality of backlinks over quantity: editorial context, thematic relevance, source authority.
• Optimize visible E-E-A-T signals: identified authors, cited sources, transparency, editorial legitimacy.
• Improve user experience: Core Web Vitals, mobile usability, loading times, navigation clarity.
• Align your content with the real intents of target queries, not on a disembodied keyword logic.
• Monitor your direct competitors in the top 3 to identify structural levers in your vertical.