Have links really lost their importance for ranking?

Why does Google emphasize that links are overestimated?

This statement comes in a context where the SEO market is still obsessed with acquiring backlinks. How many times do we hear that a site cannot rank without an army of links? Google is clearly trying to temper this belief.

The claim that links are "sometimes overestimated" is a direct jab at certain SEO practices that rely entirely on the quantity of links. The underlying message? Other factors now carry significant weight in the algorithm, and pure PageRank is no longer the absolute king it was in the 2000s.

What does “their influence is sometimes overestimated” mean in practice?

Google is not saying that links don't matter. It states that their relative weight has evolved compared to other signals: content quality, search intent, user signals, E-E-A-T, and so on.

For some low-competition informational queries, a site with few backlinks but perfectly targeted content can surpass a competitor laden with poor-quality links. This nuance is what Google is highlighting.

Should we expect links to disappear as a ranking factor?

The phrase "they are unlikely to disappear overnight" is intriguing. Google leaves the door open for a gradual evolution, without promising a date or a timeline.

Technically, links remain the best way for Google to discover new pages and assess their relative authority. A complete removal would entail a radical change in algorithmic architecture, which is unlikely in the short term.

• Links remain important for indexing and discovering content
• Their weight in ranking is relative compared to other contextual signals
• A link-building strategy remains relevant, but is no longer sufficient on its own
• Google does not foresee a brutal removal of links from its algorithm
• Evolution will occur gradually, favoring more qualitative signals

Is this statement consistent with field observations?

Yes and no. In low-competition niches, it is indeed observed that sites with few backlinks can rank honorably if they check all other boxes. Search intent, structure, fresh content, loading speed: all of this matters.

But for highly competitive commercial queries (such as insurance, finance, real estate), links remain a major differentiator. A site without a strong domain authority struggles to make its way into the top 10, even with impeccable content. [To verify] if Google is referring to a general average or specific use cases.

What portion of this statement is strategic communication?

Let's be honest: Google has a stake in minimizing the importance of links to discourage spammy practices. The more SEOs believe that links matter less, the less they buy en masse, and the less Google has to combat manipulation.

This statement may also serve to reinforce the idea that the algorithm has become sufficiently sophisticated to operate independently of a single signal. This is flattering for the image of Google’s AI and machine learning.

In what cases do links remain crucial despite this statement?

Links retain critical weight in several scenarios. First, for new sites without history: without inbound links, Google struggles to assess the legitimacy of the domain. Second, for YMYL sectors (finance, health) where external authority remains a mark of reliability.

Finally, for any local or sectoral link-building strategy (professional directories, partners, the press), links still play an amplifying role for visibility and as a signal of geographical or thematic relevance.

What should you do with this information?

First thing: rebalance your strategy. If 80% of your SEO time is spent chasing backlinks, that’s probably too much. Devote more energy to optimizing your content, your architecture, and your loading speed.

Second thing: prioritize quality over quantity. An editorial link from an authoritative site in your niche is worth more than 50 generic directory links. Google itself states that links are sometimes overestimated: don’t fall into the number trap.

What mistakes should you avoid in light of this statement?

Don't throw your link-building strategy in the trash simply because Google downplays their importance. Links remain a signal, and one that you control (unlike user signals, for instance).

Also, avoid over-investing in borderline practices (PBN, mass purchases) thinking that Google is paying less attention now. This is false: links still matter, so Google continues to track manipulations. The risk of penalty remains real.

How can you adjust your strategy to stay competitive?

Adopt a multifactorial approach. Links, yes, but alongside in-depth work on E-E-A-T, search intent, semantic structure (cocooning, siloing), Core Web Vitals, and user experience.

Measure the impact of your actions with Diverse KPIs: not just Domain Rating or the number of referring domains, but also organic click-through rate, time spent on page, and conversions. If you find that editorial work boosts your rankings as much as a link campaign, adjust accordingly.

• Rebalance the time budget between link-building and on-page optimization
• Favor contextual editorial links over generic directories
• Measure the real impact of backlinks on your business KPIs, not just vanity metrics
• Continue to monitor the link profile to avoid penalties, even though their relative weight decreases
• Diversify SEO levers: content, technical, UX, user signals
• Don’t neglect internal linking, which remains a completely manageable and powerful lever