Low Quality Highly Relevant backlinks, should we get them?

[RonMedlin]

I see a lot of opportunity to get lower quality, but highly relevant backlinks, should we try to get these?  I'll give you an example, lets say we have an asphalt paving company ( not a lot of authority blogs out there, that we can find yet)

We found this one http://www.wolfpaving.com/blog/ - DA of 27 and PA 29 should we go after links like this.  I would actually like to know about sites with less authority than this one, I would probably go for this one without question.  So Should we go after worse DA and PA but still legitimate looking sites and highly relevant?

[RobertFisher]

Rmedlin04

My opinion is that you should decide based on the amount of time/effort/$ you must expend versus what they do for you. I think when you have links from relevant sites it improves your site and chances for additional traffic. Too often we are out looking for the PA 60+ sites that we can get for the juice without thought to whether or not there is a fit. 
That is due not just to "gaming" the system, but the reality that we all need to rank above our competitors and the current algorithm(s) require it.
I would still go after the relevant links based on the resource allocation question being one I could live with.

Best

[RonMedlin]

What about low authority, but highly relevant directories?  What are your thoughts on these types of links?

[RobertFisher]

Again, if it is relevant and not just some cheap directory, go for it. If you are wanting some good links and want to pay for directories, go to Yahoo Directory and BestoftheWeb

Hope this helps

[JustDucky]

Medlin04.  I agree with Robert, it's a cost-reward trade-off.

Since it's the paving industry we're talking about, how many nice relevant sites can there be ?

I doubt there are very many that carry substantially higher PA/DA.  Your customer's competition will face the same problem of available relevant links.

Unfortunately, G's continuing attack "freshness", Panda, and now Penguin will continue to favor the sites Robert dubbed "PA-60" sites which have high "authority" but are usually written by content writers who, no matter how good they are, often do not fully understand the subject however experienced and skilled the writer may be.

No matter how anyone characterizes it, G's culling websites.  Saves on search, helps sell adwords.   If there is a huge (intentional) weakness in G's formula, it's underweighting relevant small business links out to other sites in the same business.  I believe this part of the algo is intentional because the big sites often sell the advertising which directs the traffic to these small business.