Reg Relevant’s No BS SEO & Myth Busting – Links Dont Help SEO or SERP Rankings!

2012 January 30

Hello evwybody Woger Welevant here, today I have a special treat for you, a guest SEO Information lecture fwom my bwother Weg Welevant fwom

Weg has been on the web since 1894 and knows evwything about SEO, even more than me! Following on fwom my pwevious demonstration where I showed that if your content is relevant enough, you dont even need any,  today Weg is going to blow another massive BS SEO myth out of the water, the myth that links help wiv SEO!

Reg Relevant

links are rubbish!

So without any fuwther ado, I hand you over to Weg!

Thank you Roger..

Ok, first let me say..

I would use the term “Search Psychologist”.

Call me a

Search User Psychologist (in)Engine Ranking. (SUPER)


I have never seen such confusion out of supposed “experts”.

Linking is not SEO. Social Networking is not SEO.

..Everybody says to focus on great content.

And that is a good idea. But it is not really right.  The focus should be on how the content is presented.

I am of the opinion that there are set reactions and a definite “Relevance Theory”.

“I have already proved (to myself at least)., that links have no effect, so my watching of the results is fairly accurate.”

I think people should understand that there are other methods of marketing other than search.

Optimizing your pages plays a major part in SEO, but it has it’s place in the general scheme to things. Not everything referred to as SEO is actually SEO.

One needs to look at the whole marketing picture from signs in your car’s window to social networking, to print ads, to whatever you can think of.

“No links other than the tweet and resulting retweets were made.”

Also results from a campaign running 1/4 page ads in Toronto Suburbs’ newspapers for seminars on investing in the money markets. Seminars were 2 days and $1800 for one and $2600 for a couple. Groups were limited to 20. Membership was sold in a site where you could watch the “master” make live trades.


You can’t be an expert in that short of time, but you *could* master one aspect.

You NEVER stop learning. It is most interesting.

Just as soon as you think you can relax, Google throws another curve ball, even just online is enough to keep up with.

I have some stats from running a removable sign in the back window in Toronto traffic and on the highway, if anyone is interested.


I have a new ( – May 15th 2010), website that I have been tracking closely.

In spite of my site jumping to PR4, my search results for “organic search engine optimization training” stayed at #2 out of about a million competing sites.

Another factor that swings me to the dissociation of PR and search positions is that a low or even 0PR page can be in a better position than a a page ranking higher.

Last week I noticed that the Page Rank went from 0 to 4

I also have another website, that also has a PR4.  Fantastic has been around since the internet was only 4 computers and has built up an organic following of over 5000 websites.


I think we can now say without fear that linking projects will not show the same results, and that Page Rank and search standings are distinctly separate.

If you would like to read about my testing regarding the effects of link building

“The history of a SEO linking test.”

is on my site

Page Rank has no discernible effect on search position.

The amount and quality of the inbound links is not the determining factor in Page Rank.

Link building will increase traffic and in the right circumstances, PR, but will not affect search positioning.

Search results are mainly achieved with relevance and on page work.

20-02-2012 – BS SEO Update

reg BS SEO

- 3 links had NOTHING to do with this moving from pos #20 to pos #4 in three weeks..

here we can see that although this post has moved from position 20 to position 4, this was entirely unwelated to the 3 or 4 links pointed at it.

If in the next few months it should happen to move higher for this or any other “BS SEO” phrases that nobody searches for,  that will also not be anything to do wiv people linking at it, it will obviously be because it is the most welavent and well pwesented information on the subject and the  WeTweets it weceived..  …although if we are being swtictly scientific in our testing,  according to the counter below it doesnt seem to have got any yet.


21 Comments leave one →
2012 January 31
Jock permalink

lmao, I thought it was a joke post at first but the dude has a whole website, he’s actually serious!

“links don’t help SERP, its all about ReTweets!!” – classic.

what a plum.

2012 January 31

Hi Reg, big fan here!

May I ask… when you say that content quality is subject to opinion, are you taking the 23 questions of Panda into account. Because that’s Google’s opinion. Surely that beats mine or yours, therefore it’s not totally subjective but objective.

Also, I’ve got to ask… as you’ve been doing SEO since before the internet, and before electricity, and before the invention of the printing press. Can I have your autograph :D

2012 January 31


You are the reason that so many people fail to be able to comprehend the seriousness of the need for quality within their website optimisation as well as the need for quality links.

I have seen a lot of your work over recent weeks and to said that there are flaws within your testing methods, analysis and review is a total understatement and you have just proven that like many SEO’s from the dark ages, have failed to move forward with the alterations and changes that search requires.

To say that links mean nothing in terms of SERPs ranking is pure bullshit, something that you claim there is none of on the site and with Matt Cutts from Google clearly revealing that links are important, your insight is nothing more than useless.

I know that i will get the “I have been doing SEO since you could walk” talk but the fact is old timer that you living proof that you can’t teach old dogs new tricks.

Maybe it’s time to hang up your virtual gloves and settle down for a life of talk show tv and pension collection….?

2012 January 31

I have been building web sites since ’96!! (I was in the graphic arts in Time Magazine production for 25 years and in tech service/sales for 6.)

I retired in ’90 to sail my 54′ Ketch Sea Dove to points south of Toronto and cruised for almost 5 years. When I sold my boat and moved back ashore in 95, I got into computers as something to keep me occupied.

I have been marketing online from ’94!! and started using computers in ’84!!. (For business!!).

I started building databases in ’84 and this translated into a total interest in online search.

I was immediately fascinated by the accuracy, or lack of it, when maneuvering through an information silo.

Understanding the psychology of the user is the key!

2012 February 8

To the author.
If you are going to use my content then it would be nice to have been asked.
But go ahead and use it anyway.

@Alex, you have no real idea of my methodology so you are not in a position to comment are you? Do you have a specific example of my bad methodology or is this just a general “crap on you” comment?

I can see why you are objecting, link building looks to be a major part of your business.
How old is that Matt Cutt’s vid on links?
Even back in 2008 Udi Manber, VP of engineering at Google, wrote on the Official Google Blog:

“The most famous part of our ranking algorithm is PageRank, an algorithm developed by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who founded Google. PageRank is still in use today, but it is now a part of a much larger system.”

4 years ago they started tell us that links were being depreciated.

How current are you in following Google Alex?
What do they mean when they say that PageRank is no longer an actionable metric?
What do you think they use to calculate and grade links?
Do they have a pair of link calculating systems, one for PageRank and one for SERPs?

If links count, how can a site with ONE link beat a site with 277,000(+) inbound links? PR0 vs PR8

Go back and look at the 23 Panda questions. Few deal with actual “quality”.
Let’s look at the questions.
The ones that deal with subjective opinions would not be used in SEO.

1 Would you trust the information presented in this article?
A subjective judgement.

2 Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
Another subjective judgement.

3 Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
Nothing to do with the on-page content.

4 Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
Do you have contact info, a physical address and phone number?
Are there any articles warning you against buying from this site?

5 Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
Goes to presentation. It WILL affect the SERPs.

6 Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
Again nothing to do with the presentation.
Has a lot to do with the size of the information silo.
The question is poorly phrased.
Might be changed to “Do your visitors come back for more information?”

7 Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
Nothing to do with the presentation.
Will have an effect in “news” and time sensitive indexing. “Freshness”.
A separate factor but SEO worthy.

8 Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
Nothing to do with the presentation. Subjective value.

9 How much quality control is done on content?
How do you judge what quality control has been done? Another Subjective.

10 Does the article describe both sides of a story?
Does it need to? Would an article about how our little town’s business taxes have gone up 53.1% in the last 3 years need me to present the Town Council’s views or just the business owners viewpoint?

11 Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
Is it necessary for a site to be recognized?
Does it have to be around long enough to get recognized?
How do we judge authority? It is not on page work.

12 Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
This goes to the focus of the content and the structure of the network.

13 Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
Another subjective issue.

14 For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
For a health related question I would only trust my Doctor.

15 Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
Is this necessary? See #11

16 Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
Should be rephrased.
“Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic AS IT RELATES TO YOUR SEARCH?

17 Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
This is well beyond any indexing algo’s power to discern. Not an SEO factor.

18 Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
Again, this is outside of the presentation.

19 Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
Goes to presentation.

20 Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
NA. We are not into comparing apples and oranges.. Subjective judgement.

21 Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics? See #16

22 Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
See #9 & 13

23 Would users complain when they see pages from this site
Subjective. Some do some don’t. Depends on a point of view.

Not even ONE comment on how the page is laid out, how relevance is presented, nothing.

#24 Link to domain ratio. Panda had a major effect on PR. Sites that got hit reported PageRank drops.
If you think about it, the recalculation of PageRank based on the new relevance factors would tend to hurt sites that had engaged in link building based on the PR of the linking site.


2012 February 9


Lets answer this with another question…

“When have Google ever been straight with their methodology or thoughts process?”

Whether or not Google say that links are worthwhile or not is invalidated following the overwhelming evidence that shows that the SERPs are dominated by sites that have strong linkage into them.

Feel free to spread your bullshit on your own site but do everyone else a favour and keep it strictly to that site, your “proof” is low frequency and you have no mass result across a number of sectors, instead you do one crappy test and turn that into a load of bullshit about links being worth nothing in the modern day.

You know as well as any other SEO that Google are altering the way in which the score, crawl, rank and see websites, so maybe your pre 1998 tactics worked for you then but the likelihood is that now you are been surpassed by others that move with the times.

I stand firmly behind my comment.

2012 February 9

Alex, you REALLY do not understand about SEO do you?
Just your comment “maybe your pre 1998 tactics ” is a direct example.
In that era links were THE major factor for SERPs.

Moving with the times means understanding that linking is not what it was before, and not standing firm on it like you seem to be doing.

Just because you do not understand what Google says, and they are VERY literal and exact in their general outlines, does not mean that others do not.

Why don’t you answer the question, “What do they mean when they say that PageRank is no longer an actionable metric?” instead of just crapping on me?

Just answer the question, if you can.

2012 February 9

actually Weg this is not stwictly twue is it?

“maybe your pre 1998 tactics ” is a direct example. In that era links were THE major factor for SERPs.”

Google intwoduced links/pagewank into wankings and they were only formwed in 1998 –

and only after Google got popular in the early-mid 2000′s did SEOs start making links to wank better.

2012 February 9

Reg, I think the point here is that as you seem to have graduated to Google SEO quite late in the whole process and not really tested your theories about it “en masse”, (otherwise you would know better) people take offence to being lectured about not understanding SEO when we have been ranking client sites for difficult and competitive keywords, day in day out, for years.

with respect, one SEO “test”, which was not exactly conclusive from an “SEO scientific point of view“, for one non-competitive keyword, does not really give you the right to pronounce that links don’t work, and that anybody who thinks they do doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

and arguing about Google’s spin and propaganda is utterly pointless, “who said what, and when, and what did they mean by that? ” proves nothing, that is the domain of the “forum SEO expert” – only results tell the truth.

2012 February 10



2012 February 10


Was going to ignore the fact that you are questioning my knowledge within the field but i thought why should i let you think that you have the passage to make such a bullish remark which is likely something that you would only ever say via a comments section on a site.

You wanted an answer to your pagerank question so here is how it sits within the industry at the moment:

PageRank is a metric that is considered by Google but since the creation the relevance towards the SERPs has decreased, not based on the fact that they do not take into account what they are measuring within their algo to create this ranking, just that their ranking algo has advanced in better ways to be able to create a more user relevant search environment.

All of the people that claim that PageRank is little more than a little green line that means nothing are completely wrong in my opinion and many just like me believe that there is still relevance to the measure albeit what seems to be a small amount.

You clearly say that you believe that Google are very clear with their guidelines which is complete rubbish as they have and will never come out and openly reveal what they are looking for in order for a site to rank within top position for search terms otherwise their system would be subjected to ‘gaming’ and could be manipulated in a way to benefit anyone that help that information.

The fact that you clearly fail to believe your own ‘theory’ that content is king within the world of web rankings never seems to amaze me, especially with the fact that looking at your site the content tends to be either a controversial piece that is designed to create discussions like this or is the same old tired shite that seems to have been covered on a number of sites before it hits your press.

Questioning my understanding is something that should come with caution as I have never clearly laid out my views and theories and should I ever wish to do so, it would come with a firm evidence base to back that up, not some small scale test that could have gone either way.

A look at your site reveals that you offer meta keyword composition, something that should be clearly a 3 second recommendation on the fact that the Google search engine no longer use such information to determine the rank of a website within their results.

Maybe you should look at the shite that you create and improve the quality before trying to pass comments on whether links are a ranking factor.

I have clients that are high profile, not some sorry arse small company that are looking to profit in local searching, so calling me out on my understanding of Google is a sure sign that you have no other comments that are worthy of being brought to the table in this conversation.

As you clearly like to show the competition that you battle against for clients, how about the fact that i rank a client at number one and two for a term with 574,000,000 results….

Thanks for chipping in Reg but you clearly have learning to do, adaptation to make and a foot to take out of your mouth…


2012 February 10

Point of order Alex, although this is a dofollow blog (which is pwobably why Weg is spamming it with his links) but if you are going to link to blatent linkfawms like that bakery site I need to nofollow it I hope you dont mind but I need to protect my good neighbourhood.


2012 February 10


Feel free to no follow those, they have no relation to me just the shite that Reg seems to believe works in a positive way for his clients.

His clients are low scale, small time clients so guessing this is the result of hiring someone that i wouldn’t let wash my car let alone rank my sites….

2012 February 12

[...] .. No BS SEO <—  here – that’s (one of) the test links that will apparently make no difference to rankings of the page.. [...]

2012 February 29

[...] is of course vewy intewesting because Reg (No BS SEO) has alweady pwooved with his extensive tests that links dont affect wankings [...]

2012 April 10

[...] you may know we have been hotly debating BS SEO in the form of whether links help SERPs or not any more with the big “G”.  Some [...]

2012 April 15

I think links still work too.

2012 April 22

This is a subject I have been pondering the last couple of months. It seems that getting links back to your websites mean a lot less than they used to! A few years back, a person could see obvious gains after receiving a few quality backlinks. Now, the results are so cloudy, I’m starting to wonder myself, just how important links are… I know it doesn’t hurt, but maybe it just takes a crap load more or perhaps the value of those links ya get today, have a long delay before they benefit your websites.
I’m undecided, but this was an interesting topic, nonetheless. I’m going to check this site out some more; cheers!

2012 June 13
Shabby permalink

The web is links.. A network is links…you cant take links out of the equation of search. But Google are trying to do that! Brand, Content & Social are 3 keys with links helping all 3 :)

2013 January 5

Every weekend i used to visit this web site, for the reason that i wish for enjoyment,
as this this website conations in fact nice funny data too.

2015 February 7

[...] we had our SEO contnet experts look over the wordy yet meaningless drivel the links are embedded into and they feel fairly certan that they have seen that style before, somewhere… [...]


Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS