Few high quality links or a plethora of mediocre links?

[SteveOllington]

Actually no, and I wouldn't turn down a link due to low DA, PA, etc... we still get whatever links we can, especially if they're fast. What I mean though, is that if we were to spend any real time and resources going after a link... it would be either high quality from a trusted domain, or highly relevant... preferably both. But I don't have any fixed limit, just judge it as the opportunity presents itself I guess (i.e. how much time & resources need to be put into acquiring it). Aside from that, like EGOL just said, the best way to get links is make people want to link to you, without you having to try to get it, from having great content and promoting it in the right places. Link Baiting > Link Building

[EGOL]

Maybe you had the wrong topic?

Was it one that every Joe Schmoe in a region or industry were talking about because it got into their wallet?  If yes, then correspond with bloggers, industry leaders, law professors, media people about it, ask to quote them to get them involved.

Show the spectrum of engagement. Ask the law schools to link to you from their topics page and professors from their teaching and research page - after you have collaborated with them, of course.

[SteveOllington]

No it's fine... you can't help who links to you. If you had thousands of them all within a limited space of time, all with similar anchor text, etc... then yes. But I wouldn't worry at all otherwise

[lalawyer]

This post is deleted!

[lalawyer]

This post is deleted!

[RyanKent]

Jsoc, can you please clarify your statements regarding penalties?

To the best of my knowledge the only "penalty" that Google imposes is to remove value from the link. Have you ever heard Matt Cutts or any Google authority share that a site can receive a penalty due to receiving a bad link?

We can all agree that we want high quality links for our sites. If I was approached by a guy who said "Hey, I would like to give you 1000 low quality links for free. Do you accept?" then my answer would be, YES, of course. Why? Because it is my understanding there is no direct harm possible from the link.

The only harm I can think of possible from a link is positioning or public perception. If I was to make a statement "here is a list of a bad sites" and my site was on the list, then that link would not be worth the negative public perception. Also links which show a product in a way the site doesn't wish to be seen. For example a company named it's ED spray "DieHard" and then linked to Sears. That is undesirable and can negatively affect a brand.

A 1000 random chinese directory links to my site though, I'll take them gladly. Is there anyone who feels otherwise?

[JSOC]

Ryan,

Nothing much to clarify, the types of links you're talking about (1,000 spammy links) can hurt your site. Take a look at this video by Rand: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/preventing-linkbased-penalties-whiteboard-friday

This post: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/whiteboard-friday-we-bought-links-and-it-worked

or just search link penalties on this site. Here's another one: http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/overcoming-google-penalty-a-small-business-case-study

[dignan99]

I personally think that links from legitimate high quality sources are ideal.  I no longer waste any time doing link building in places that do not involve my industry, and have spent enough time on my site that people contact ME as the resource they want to get a link from.

I am going to spend some time doing guest blogging, or attempting to build those connections.

I think what could be argued is what is considered a "mediocre" site.  Some newer sites will have the lower page rank but end up being quality in the long term view.

[tim.mcgovern]

What do you mean by fast links?

[supermarketonline]

Its a shame there isent an algorithm that one could look at to determiine the value of links