Why using one SEO metric isn’t smart for link building in 2019
Since April 2016 when the PageRank tool bar was retired, the chosen metric for many has been Moz.com’s Domain Authority (commonly known as “DA”) – especially for bulk link builders – and its been useful for getting a rough idea of how a site ‘could be’ viewed by Google but do you know how it should be used properly?
At Linkology we aim to build links that only make a positive impact so we’ve formulated a new approach for checking websites that uses DA how it should be. It is a faster and more logical way than using the common ‘high DA’ only model >>>
>>> It’s a mixed metric approach which we have found offers a way to build a safer, more powerful backlink profile – if you are still assessing links based on DA alone or are new to link building or just looking to get the edge, this guide is written for you.
Why using Moz DA in isolation is madness
DA in it’s current form is okay if used properly. With the 2019 DA update it is going to be a way more useful metric BUT applying it in isolation is still as dangerous as judging a car’s worth by the paint job. Marketers need to understand what DA is (and isn’t) useful for and how it fits in the context of other metrics. Somehow, the entire SEO industry got hung up on DA so we’re pumped that mixed metrics (which we’ve always promoted) is the way to go.
Moz have said themselves that DA is not to be used alone and that it has never been a reliable metric for understanding how much a link from one site to another will improve its rankings (you can read about that here). Our mission is to use the updated Moz DA scoring alongside other powerful metrics like Ahrefs Domain Rating, Majestic TrustFlow and estimated traffic scores to find sites with real value.
Taking a ‘high DA only’ approach to link building is even crazier
Why would you solely rely on links from a relatively small pool of websites based on the assignment of a high DA score?
Ruling out sites based on lower DA scores is an approach that increases costs unnecessarily and is way too narrow meaning perfectly decent link opportunities are missed. There is a better way but there are obstacles…
The real problem the SEO industry has is obvious
Few people outside of Google have statistically significant evidence of what actually works.
…but the truth is that the knowledge outside of Google is thin at best. The web is huge and nobody has the resources to unravel how Google analyses billions of sites and ranks them – everyone is guessing.
We all need a faster, reliable way to assess sites
As an agency we get approached by clients to find sites using crazy mixes of metrics, often without any rational justification.
This lack of a standard approach has created a situation where few marketers have a clue how to score sites with any confidence. It’s no wonder they look to tool developers for guidance and this combined with laziness is where the problem has got worse.
The need for a quick method of filtering sites has overtaken rational thinking and the metric with the biggest budget and/or the smartest marketers naturally gained popularity. Currently it’s Moz’s DA but Majestic TrustFlow and Ahrefs Domain Rating have ever growing numbers of disciples too.
This complacency or blind loyalty to one or the other metric is going to be very costly for some.
The obvious danger of relying on one SEO tool
Tool owners don't have access to Google’s algorithm so where is the best knowledge coming from?
The ‘experts’ create SEO rumours which spread fast and like Chinese whispers they quickly become truths because there are no authority sources to regulate information. Do EMD’s still work? Is guest posting dead? Is DA the new PageRank? Are links or content more important? So many myths – You decide!
The tool providers analyse websites using best guesses based on reading patents, analysing connections between sites, content, I.P. addresses and plenty of other factors. Because they actually collect data I’d say that their opinions are the most robust we’ve got…
Deciding which metrics are worth adopting is not easy so we’ve gone for a multi-metric approach. The challenge is which ones to adopt and how best to use their data.
Is there a smarter way to use SEO tools?
Before we answer let’s get something out in the open...
We use the moniker ‘Linkologists’ because we try to study link building, make sense of how it works and provide a service based on fairly assessing links for SEO campaigns.
We are not scientists, developers or mathematicians ourselves (although we work with some clever ones), but are link builders trying to do an effective job without being paralysed by the fear that Google’s (understandably) clandestine approach to the search business creates.
We use the same tools that are available to you, but we try to use them in better ways because that’s our job.
To answer the question ‘is there a better way to use the SEO tools available?’ we’ve first had to choose the right tools. We can’t categorically prove what tools are best, but there are clear market leaders (I appreciate marketing budgets play a part here) and there’s arguably enough technical information for an experienced SEO to make an informed decision.
The key to getting the best from them is understanding the potential power (and limitations) of each tool, then giving them a weighting using the combined metrics to achieve a balanced view of the opportunity a website may offer.
Is mixing up SEO metrics the answer?
Yes, in our opinion a mixed metric approach is the way forward – but done the right way
We find that creative SEO’s use their own mix of a few metrics such as Majestic TrustFlow/Citation Flow, Ahrefs Domain Rating and traffic scores for initial filtering. They then use other factors like location, relevance and U/X to narrow down the best opportunities which makes sense.
We wanted to systemize this approach to asses sites quickly for our clients. We’ve found that using a mixed formula is better than scoring with just DA because when each metric is weighted correctly it opens up the number of good opportunities, which lowers your costs.
Additionally, if a tool has a major update like Moz has with DA, we can adjust the value of that metric easily to reflect the confidence we have in it.
The right blend of metrics gets the right results
The best link builders we've worked with use a mix of SEO (DA, TF etc.) and quality metrics (U/X) combined with common sense to make clever site choices. Here's how...
Welcome to 'M-Flux', the site assessment formula for 2019 and beyond
I agree 100%, the market is saturated with tools and metrics but that doesn’t mean we should all get lazy and settle for whatever we were told 2 years ago or follow whatever everyone else is doing.
The standard ‘DA only’ approach to assessing links has been around too long and a change is overdue.
SEO is about challenging paradigms and changing the approach when it’s needed to stay ahead of the curve and we’re ready.
Google has layered up multiple game changing algorithm updates meaning the playing field is very different to a decade ago (or even a few years back!) so being open to new approaches is paramount.
Our goal is to significantly improve upon the one metric mentality, we have not attempted to undermine individual metrics like DA, but to use them in a way that gives a fairer assessment of sites.
The one metric approach has to be retired or else we are all heading towards higher costs and fewer opportunities.
As I’ve said, most of the SEO metrics we’ve used have their merits, so we wanted to employ the best of them in a multi-metric assessment formula.
To achieve this, we considered how Google assesses sites using the information available from them.
We then matched up those algorithmic factors to the tools that best measure those qualities and data points.
Not an easy task when you consider that three main pillars of SEO – which are simply put traffic, user experience / content and backlinks – all involve multiple other factors but we narrowed it down!
We were also hugely mindful that all tools can be manipulated and data can be interpreted differently but like I said, we weren’t aiming for the best, just much better.
What tools and metrics did we use for M-Flux?
Over the last 13 years we've used virtually every SEO tool on the market. We settled on paying for those that constantly demonstrate a commitment to evolving. Tools that provide users with easy to grasp metrics borne from rigorous research get our green light.
We started with considering what needed measuring…
Estimated organic traffic, user experience, content quality and the strength of a backlink profile are *probably the best indicators of whether a site is fit for link building.
*The truth is (sorry if we’re labouring this point) that no tools have access to Google’s algorithm so are open to degrees of manipulation but would you rather navigate a minefield with half a map or no map at all?
In my opinion these are:
Why we chose these tools and metrics for our M-Flux formula
We wanted to create a scoring system where sites score well using the more trusted metrics so that the risk of choosing an inferior site is lowered significantly. These guys made the cut...
ORGANIC TRAFFIC: SEMRUSH ESTIMATED ORGANIC TRAFFIC
BACKLINK QUALITY: AHREFS DOMAIN RATING (DR), MAJESTIC TRUSTFLOW (TF), MOZ.COM DOMAIN AUTHORITY (DA)
SITE QUALITY: OUR 22-POINT HUMAN REVIEW PLUS MOZ SPAM SCORE
Why M-Flux will get you way ahead of the competition without spending more
Want to get started?
Get in touch now to get your M-Flux questions answered and start ranking better!
Contact George@linkologists.com for pricing and more information or use the live chat over there.