Please Guide me - Is this good or bad backlink? Website have all same type of backlinks.

[varunrupal]

Website niche - Animation and 3D Rendering Studios

Backlink from - http://www.adamfrisby.com/create-home-design-and-interior-decor-in-2d-3d.html

the anchor tag is image URL from one of the many images in that post.

Please let me know such types of links were good for bad?

[effectdigital]

Well let's take a look at metrics for this page and also metrics for this domain as a whole.

Here's the linking page: http://www.adamfrisby.com/create-home-design-and-interior-decor-in-2d-3d.html

Moz Metrics:

• Page Authority: 16
• Domain Authority: 24
• No backlinks or linking domains detected, pointing to this individual web-page
• 5,600+ links pointing to the domain overall, from 100 domains

Ahrefs Metrics:

• URL Rating: 7
• Domain Rating: 24
• No backlinks or linking domains detected, pointing to this individual web-page
• 7,690+ links pointing to the domain overall, from 84 domains

Majestic SEO Metrics (Fresh Index):

• Page-level Citation Flow: 10
• Page-Level Trust Flow: 0
• No backlinks or linking domains detected, pointing to this individual web-page
• Domain-level Citation Flow: 20
• Domain-level Trust Flow: 9

Ahrefs estimate of daily traffic this site gets from SEO: less than 1 user per day (0.074 users per day on average)

SEMRush estimate of daily traffic this site gets from SEO: 0 user per day

---

At best these metrics are mediocre, at worst the link could be toxic. How can they have thousands of backlinks from only hundreds of domains, and also be seeing no traffic from SEO combined with low trust scores from Majestic?!

It seems like one of those cookie-cutter sites produced to sell links to people, not like a viable link source in 2018. By the way, for me - that page took **years **to load! About 20 seconds. It would obviously score terribly in Pingdom Tools / Google Page-Speed Insights / GTMetrix (three solid page-speed evaluation tools). When people build link-farms to sell crap links to people who don't know SEO very well, they seldom care about users. Seldom spend time optimising the site for those who really matter

Design-wise the site looks like pure spam to me. It looks like it has been built just to supply SEO links, like the site and contained links wouldn't exist if it weren't for SEO being an active industry. That's strictly against Google's guidelines! 'Links for the sake of it' are frowned upon, this link looks like it came from the early 2000s and won't do a damn thing for your current SEO (except maybe earn you a penalty).

Relevance isn't just semantic wordplay, you get me? You have to be thinking "why would it be relevant for a user to click on and follow this link". That's real link relevance. Just because Site A and Site B are thematically related - that does not make the link relevant (whether it be image, text or whatever). By the way, image links barely ever carry any SEO juice.

Google don't want to count links of a paid-for or 'advertorial' nature. Links which carry SEO authority should also carry traffic. They should be editorial in nature, and benefit the users that click on those links. This link fails all of those completely.

If a page which has barely any or no SEO authority links to hundreds of pages, each of them get barely anything back.

It only takes 2-3 consecutive visits to this site to force a 503, server busy. This means that whoever built the site, sure as hell wasn't planning for anyone to ever, ever look at it.

Does Google even care it exists?

Look at Google's cache for the specified linking page: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adamfrisby.com%2Fcreate-home-design-and-interior-decor-in-2d-3d.html

Google doesn't even keep a cached copy. Google has technically indexed the page, for what purpose I cannot say. Probably just to keep an eye on it, because it's shady AF.

Overall I give this link an F-