Are backlinks still a major ranking factor, or is Google bluffing?

Is Google really changing its stance on backlinks?

No, not really. Google maintains that inbound links still count, but is reframing the public narrative to prevent SEOs from focusing solely on that. Historically, PageRank and backlinks have been at the core of Google's algorithm. This statement doesn't say that links are becoming obsolete; it simply states that a mediocre link carries less weight than before.

The shift is happening in terms of relative weighting: other signals (semantic relevance, user behavior, E-E-A-T) are gaining importance. A backlink from a non-relevant or spam-filled site carries less weight than content that precisely addresses search intent. Google wants to prevent SEOs from abusing aggressive link building techniques, hence this softened communication.

What does Google mean by 'quality' and 'relevance' of links?

Quality: authority of the referring domain, editorial context of the link, position on the page, absence of manipulative schemes. A link from a mainstream news article in the same sector is worth infinitely more than a link from a generic directory. Relevance: theme of the source site aligned with that of the target site, natural anchor, coherent semantic context.

Google never publicly quantifies these concepts. A 'quality' backlink remains a black box. The criteria evolve with algorithm updates, and Google deliberately leaves this ambiguity to limit manipulation. This vagueness forces SEOs to invest in natural editorial links rather than industrial schemes.

Can content really compensate for a weak link profile?

In some low-competition niches or for long-tail queries, yes. A site with zero backlinks but comprehensive and optimized content can rank for specific terms. However, on competitive queries (finance, health, tech), content alone is not enough. The SERPs consistently show that the top 3 sites combine solid content AND a robust link profile.

Google mixes the cards: it says 'content first,' but its own results prove that authoritative domains with many trusted backlinks still dominate. This statement reflects a communication strategy more than an absolute technical reality. It’s a way of saying 'stop spamming poor links,' not 'stop link building.'

• Backlinks remain an active ranking signal, not a relic of the past.
• Quality > quantity: a contextual link from an authoritative site is better than 100 directory links.
• The thematic relevance of the incoming link enhances its weight in the algorithm.
• Content alone does not compensate for a lack of links on competitive queries, despite the official discourse.
• Google deliberately blurs the criteria for quality to limit large-scale manipulation.

Does this statement really reflect what we observe on the ground?

Partially only. Site audits of the top 10 show that backlinks still strongly correlate with positions, even if it’s no longer the sole lever. A site with a high DR (Domain Rating) and hundreds of quality RD (Referring Domains) statistically has a better chance of ranking than a competitor with equivalent content but few links.

On the other hand, we do see that sites with mediocre link profiles but highly targeted content can outperform in specific niches. Google has improved its semantic understanding (BERT, MUM), which allows it to better match content and intent, even without massive backlinks. But for money queries (insurance, loans, real estate), domains without link authority still struggle. [To be verified]: Google provides no figures on the relative weighting of signals, making it impossible to quantify precisely this 'less important but still important.'

What nuances can be added to this official position?

Google communicates to dissuade black hat techniques (PBNs, link farms, abusive guest blogging). Saying 'links matter less' limits large-scale manipulation attempts. But technically, PageRank has never been removed from the algorithm; it has merely been supplemented by hundreds of other signals.

Another nuance: not all sectors are equal. In e-commerce or news, content freshness and behavioral signals weigh heavily. In finance or health (YMYL), domain authority (largely measured through backlinks) remains critical. Google does not make this distinction in its public communication, making the statement too general to be actionable as it stands.

Finally, quality and relevance are subjective notions with no public benchmark. An SEO cannot directly measure 'the quality' of a link using Google tools. Proxies are used (DR, DA, source site traffic, editorial context), but none of this is official. This opacity maintains Google's total control.

Should you still invest budget in link building?

Yes, without hesitation. A competitive audit shows that sites dominating competitive SERPs all have a solid link profile. Stopping link building on the pretext that 'Google says content is enough' would be a major strategic mistake. What changes is the method: no more bulk link purchases from dubious platforms, but instead digital press relations, link baiting through original content, and editorial partnerships.

The link building budget should be reallocated toward high-value links: original studies cited by the media, repurposed infographics, free tools used by industry professionals. These links are more expensive to obtain (in time or money), but their impact is lasting and their algorithm risk is almost zero. Relying solely on content without a link strategy is like hoping backlinks will come naturally, which rarely works without a push.

How can you adapt your link building strategy to this reality?

Prioritize thematic relevance: a link from a blog specialized in your sector is worth more than ten links from generalist sites. Audit your current link profile and disavow spam or off-topic domains that pollute your profile. The Google Disavow Tool still exists, use it if you have inherited a questionable profile.

Next, invest in linkable content: data-driven case studies, exclusive data, free tools, comprehensive guides. These assets attract natural links without aggressive outreach. Link baiting still works, as long as you produce something genuinely original. Another 'Top 10 of X' article won't attract any spontaneous backlinks.

What mistakes should you absolutely avoid?

Don't bet everything on link volume. Buying 500 backlinks for €5 each on Fiverr is the best way to trigger a manual or algorithmic penalty. Google is getting better at detecting artificial link schemes (over-optimized anchors, massive links in a short time, identical source sites). One good editorial link is worth more than a hundred directory links.

Another trap: completely ignoring link building on the pretext that 'Google says it matters less'. Your competitors won't make this mistake. If you let your link profile stagnate while they build theirs, you'll mechanically lose positions. The balance lies in the qualitative approach, not in abandoning the discipline.

How can you check if your link profile aligns with these criteria?

Use Google Search Console to list your current backlinks. Export the complete list and filter by referring domain. Evaluate each domain manually: is it in your thematic area? Does it have organic traffic? Is the link contextual or spam in the footer? If more than 30% of your RDs are questionable, start a cleanup via Disavow.

Next, benchmark your direct competitors with Ahrefs, Majestic, or Semrush. Compare your number of RDs, your DR, and especially the average quality of your links against theirs. If you are lagging behind on these metrics, you know where to allocate your budget. The goal is not to have 'the most links', but to have a balanced, natural, and thematically coherent profile.

• Audit your current link profile via GSC and a third-party tool (Ahrefs, Majestic).
• Disavow spam or off-topic domains that pollute your profile.
• Prioritize contextual editorial links from authoritative sites in your niche.
• Invest in linkable content (studies, original data, free tools).
• Benchmark your competitors to identify link gaps to fill.
• Avoid artificial link schemes (over-optimized anchors, rapid massive volume).