Are manually posted backlinks in forums and comments really useless for SEO?

Why does Google claim to ignore this type of links?

Google aims to value authentic editorial signals. A link placed manually in a blog comment or an obscure forum typically has no editorial intent: it’s spam, plain and simple. The algorithm has learned to detect them and, according to Mueller, to silence them.

In practical terms, this means the engine does not account for them in its link graph for calculating PageRank or topical relevance. No bonuses, no penalties — they are simply invisible for ranking. That’s the official version.

Is this position new, or just a reminder?

Google has been hammering this message for years. The Penguin updates targeted manipulative link schemes as early as the 2010s. What has changed is the clarity of the message: previously, potential penalties were discussed; today, Mueller says, "we ignore them".

The nuance is important. Ignoring is not punishing. It suggests that Google has enough confidence in its ability to filter out the noise that it no longer needs to actively sanction these practices — at least for links that are clearly identifiable as spam.

What differentiates a "random" link from a legitimate one?

A legitimate link is placed in a rich editorial context, on a page that has established topical authority, with a natural anchor and a coherent link environment. The link exists because it adds value to the reader, not because an SEO filled out a form.

Random links, on the other hand, are dropped indiscriminately: the same anchor repeated, the same automated signature, the same URLs in dozens of unrelated forums. Google detects these spam patterns through graph analysis, behavioral signals (pages never visited), and machine learning.

• Weak editorial signal: the link is not contextualized within quality content
• Absence of referral traffic: no one clicks on these links, Google knows it
• Detectable spam pattern: volume, anchors, repetitive locations
• Zero page authority: abandoned forums, unmoderated comment pages
• Absence of social signal or engagement: no sharing, no natural reactions around the link

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Yes and no. On well-established sites with a strong link profile, adding a few dozen forum links changes nothing — neither positively nor negatively. Here, Mueller's statement holds true. Google indeed seems to ignore them.

However, on very young sites or in ultra-competitive niches, strange fluctuations are still sometimes observed after aggressive comment link campaigns. Is it a coincidence? A residue of an old algorithm? A manual penalty being triggered? Hard to say. [To be verified] on a large sample with correlation analysis.

What nuances should be added to this official discourse?

Mueller talks about "randomly placed links." But what about a link placed intelligently in a high-authority forum, in an active discussion, with a real value contribution? That’s no longer spam; it’s strategic community management.

Google cannot ignore a link from a 500-comment Reddit thread, upvoted 2000 times, on a page that itself ranks top 10 for competitive queries. The context and quality of the platform change everything. Mueller's declaration applies to generic spam, not to legitimate editorial contributions.

In what cases does this rule not apply?

When the link generates real qualified traffic. Google may ignore the pure link signal, but it cannot ignore behavioral signals: bounce rate, time spent, conversions. If a forum link brings in 200 engaged visitors per month, it has value — even if Google claims to ignore it as a backlink.

The second case: high-authority platforms where Google has not yet deployed its anti-spam filters aggressively. Some proprietary CMS, certain closed communities, some industry-specific professional networks still evade the algorithmic radar. But beware, it’s a cat-and-mouse game.

What should you stop doing immediately?

Stop entrusting low-cost offshore providers with the task of posting 500 links in blog comments. It's wasted time, money thrown out the window, and a risk of polluting your link profile that could attract the attention of a quality rater.

Also, stop believing that an automatic tool posting in 1000 forums will help you rank. The only winners in this story are those selling the tool. Your site remains in the same place — or worse, gets manually flagged if someone complains about the spam.

What strategies should you redirect your link-building efforts towards?

Focus on authentic editorial links: digital press relations, guest blogging on sites with real audiences, thematic partnerships, creating linkable resources (studies, tools, infographics). Everything that generates a link because your content deserves to be cited.

Link baiting remains the most sustainable strategy. Produce content that naturally attracts links: exclusive data, original angles, innovative formats. This takes more time, costs more to produce, but the results are exponential — and sustainable.

How to audit and clean a polluted link profile?

Export your link profile from Search Console and identify suspicious patterns: over-optimized anchors, spammy domains, spam comment pages. Sort by domain authority, topical relevance, and type of link.

Use the disavow file only if you have suffered a manual action confirmed in Search Console. Otherwise, if Google really ignores these links, disavowal is unnecessary. It's better to invest in new quality links to dilute the bad ones in the noise.

• Stop all automated comment or forum link campaigns
• Audit your backlink profile with Ahrefs, Majestic or SEMrush
• Identify toxic domains and over-optimized anchors
• Prioritize creating linkable content over forced acquisition
• Establish a press or industry influencer relations strategy
• Consider expert support if your profile is complex