There’s No Such Thing as a Backlink  ## Metadata - Author: [[Jono Alderson]] - Full Title: There’s No Such Thing as a Backlink - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: - #SEO - #LinkStrategy - #OpenSourceAdvocacy Author: Jono Alderson Source: jonoalderson.com Reference: https://www.jonoalderson.com/conjecture/no-such-thing-as-a-backlink/ date created: 2025-08-16 12:45 --- # Title: There’s No Such Thing as a Backlink ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) --- ## 📝 Summary Jono Alderson dismantles the common SEO term “backlink” as a misleading oversimplification. Links aren’t static “things” to be counted; they’re dynamic relationships between contexts, inheriting meaning from both ends. Reducing them to “backlinks” strips away trust, relevance, and purpose—paving the way for commodification and shallow metrics. In an AI-driven web shaped by entity graphs, genuine value comes from building meaningful, contextual relationships, not gaming link counts. --- ## 📖 Main Content Alderson reframes links as **edges in a graph of meaning and trust**, not standalone tokens. He critiques industry jargon like “DoFollow links,” “journalist links,” and “niche edits” as artificial constructs serving vendors more than site owners. Key arguments: - **Terminology shapes thinking** — “Backlink” implies a one-way, self-centered view that ignores context. - **Convenience fuels oversimplification** — Counting links is easier than modelling trust networks. - **AI and LLMs change the game** — They evaluate links as part of semantic ecosystems, not PageRank tallies. - **Relationship-first mindset** — Sustainable SEO prioritizes relevance, mutual benefit, and integration. ### 🗒️ Notes - **Links as relationships** - Not objects; value comes from source–destination trust/context. - Breaking/changing either side alters meaning. - **Problems with “backlink”** - One-way framing ignores why link exists. - Oversimplifies for reporting/KPIs. - **Convenience vs reality** - Easy metrics → shallow strategies. - Bought links fail without context/trust. - **Misleading industry terms** - “DoFollow” = invented sales term. - “Niche edits” often harm context. - “Journalist links” commodify normal relationships. - **“Link building” critique** - Implies industrial process. - Real authority links are *earned*, not built. - **Search in 2025+** - AI agents see semantic networks, not backlinks. - Contextless links stand out as noise. - **Why language persists** - Vendors benefit from commodifying complexity. - **Optimizing for the right web** - Stop chasing counts. - Build relevant, trust-based relationships. - Fit into broader semantic ecosystems. --- ## 📖 References - Alderson, J. (2025). *There’s No Such Thing as a Backlink*. jonoalderson.com. https://www.jonoalderson.com/conjecture/no-such-thing-as-a-backlink/ --- ## 🗣️ Paraphrase 1. **Original**: “A link is a relationship… inheriting its meaning, relevance, and trust from both ends at once.” **Paraphrase**: A link functions as a bond, with its significance, reliability, and topical alignment drawn from both the source and the destination simultaneously. 2. **Original**: “If your mental model is still ‘get more backlinks’… you’re optimising for the wrong web.” **Paraphrase**: If you still think success comes from collecting backlinks, your strategy is outdated—you should be building relevant connections in a trust-based web. --- ## 📰 Newsletter **📰 SEO Myth-Busting: Backlinks Aren’t Real** This week, Jono Alderson shook the SEO crowd with a truth bomb: there’s no such thing as a “backlink.” The term oversimplifies what a link really is—a trust-based relationship between two contexts. As AI and LLMs shift search towards semantic graphs, gaming link counts is yesterday’s news. Instead, focus on creating meaningful relationships that make sense in context. WordPress site owners, this is your reminder: your best SEO strategy is to be part of a trusted, relevant network—stop chasing numbers, start building community. [Read more here](https://www.jonoalderson.com/conjecture/no-such-thing-as-a-backlink/). --- ## ✅ Action Items - Develop **training modules** for WordPress contributors on “relationship-first SEO.” - Create **case studies** showing AI-driven ranking shifts away from link counts. - Launch **community workshops** on contextual linking and trust networks. - Advocate within WordPress.org for **education over commodification** in SEO advice. - Tie into OSPO leadership goals: transparency in link acquisition, promoting sustainable visibility strategies. --- ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Sites focusing on contextual, trust-based linking will outperform link-count-focused sites in AI-driven search. - H2: Vendor-driven terminology perpetuates shallow SEO practices. - H3: Removing “backlink” from reporting will shift strategies toward relationship-building. ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative SEO performance analysis (link-count vs trust-network strategies). - Sentiment/content analysis of SEO agency marketing materials. - Experimental content campaigns measuring impact of contextual vs transactional links. ### ❓ Questions - How do AI search models weigh trust vs quantity in link evaluation? - What happens when reporting tools remove “backlink count” entirely? - Can WordPress.org tutorials influence industry language norms? ### 🔮 Future Research - Effects of relationship-first SEO on niche market discoverability. - AI weighting of semantic proximity in entity graphs. - Longitudinal impact of removing commodified link terms. ### 💡 Implications - Could shift SEO industry towards more ethical, sustainable practices. - Potentially reduce spammy link-building markets. - Positions WordPress as a leader in modern, AI-aware SEO education. --- ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - **Visual**: Minimal; add infographics showing trust networks. - **Aural**: None; offer podcast/audio summaries. - **Verbal**: Strong analogies; maintain clear definitions. - **Physical**: Missing; could add practical exercises (e.g., mapping site relationships). - **Logical**: Solid logical flow; could add flowcharts of link evaluation. - **Social**: Limited; recommend forums/discussions. - **Solitary**: Reflection prompts could enhance self-learning. - **Naturalistic**: No environmental parallels; could add ecosystem analogies. --- ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment - **Alt text**: Not applicable; article is text-only. - **Keyboard navigation**: No interactive barriers. - **Contrast**: Dependent on site theme; ensure high contrast. - **Text resizing**: Appears responsive; confirm with accessibility testing. --- ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment - **Cultural Relevance**: Lacks diverse examples—could pull from global SEO practices. - **Inclusive Language**: Neutral and accessible. - **Neurodiversity Support**: Good use of headers; could add TL;DR summaries. - **Representation**: No imagery; neutral by default. - **Psychological Safety**: No triggering language. --- ## ✅ Logical validity - **Strengths**: - **Sound deductive reasoning**: Link value tied to mutual context. - **Causal reasoning**: Explains why bought links fail. - **Balanced view**: Recognizes link metrics’ convenience but flaws. - **Weaknesses**: - Minor **appeal to consequences** (“you’ll fail if you do X”), but supported with reasoning. --- ## 🔍 DARVO Analysis - **Deny**: None; no denial of responsibility. - **Attack**: Mild critique of vendors’ misleading language. - **Reverse Victim/Offender**: Not present; focus is on industry improvement, not victimization. --- ## 🔍 SEO Evaluation - **Keywords**: “Backlink,” “link buil - Summary: How SEO’s most common link myths flatten complexity, ignore trust, and risk making your strategy irrelevant in the AI-shaped web. - URL: https://www.jonoalderson.com/conjecture/no-such-thing-as-a-backlink/  A link is not a “thing” you can own. It’s not a point in a spreadsheet, or a static object you can collect and trade like a baseball card. And it’s certainly not a “one-way vote of confidence” in your favour. A link is a relationship. Every link connects *two contexts*: a source and a destination. That connection exists only in the relationship between those two points – inheriting its meaning, relevance, and trust from *both* ends at once. Break either end, and the link collapses. Change either end, and its meaning shifts. If you want to understand how search engines, LLMs, and AI agents perceive and traverse the web, you have to start from this idea: links are not things. They are edges in a graph of meaning and trust. #### Why “backlink” is a problem That’s why “backlink” is such a loaded, dangerous word. The moment you call it a backlink, you flatten the concept into something purely *about you*. You stop thinking about the source. You stop thinking about why the link exists. You strip away its context, its purpose, its role in the broader ecosystem. And what’s on the other side – is that a “forward link”? Of course not. We’d never use that phrase because it’s absurd. Yet “backlink” has been normalised to the point where we’ve trained ourselves to see only one direction: inbound to *us*. This isn’t harmless shorthand. It’s an active simplification – a way of collapsing something messy and multi-dimensional into a clean, one-directional metric that fits neatly in a monthly report. #### Flattening complexity for convenience The real problem with “backlink” isn’t just that it’s inaccurate – it’s that it’s *convenient*. Modelling, tracking, and valuing the true nature of a link – as a relationship between two entities, grounded in trust, context, and purpose – is complicated. It’s hard to scale. It doesn’t always fit neatly in a dashboard. Flatten it into “backlink count,” and suddenly you have a number. You can set a target, buy some, watch the line go up. It doesn’t matter if the links are contextless, untrusted, or fragile – the KPI looks good. That’s why so many bought links don’t move the needle. They’re designed to satisfy the simplified model, not the underlying reality. You’re optimising for the report, not the algorithm. #### The industry’s other convenient fictions This isn’t just about “backlinks” or “link counts.” The link economy thrives on invented terminology because it turns the intangible into something tradable: * **“Journalist links”** aren’t a distinct species of link. They’re just… links. Links from journalists, sure, but still subject to the same rules of trust, context, and relevance as everything else. Calling them “journalist links” lets agencies sell them as a premium product, implying some magic dust that doesn’t exist. * **“Niche edits”** is a euphemism for “retroactively inserting a link into an existing page.” In reality, the practice often creates a weaker connection than the original content warranted, and risks breaking the source’s context entirely. But “niche edit” sounds tidy, productised, and easy to buy. * **“DoFollow links”** don’t exist. Links are followable by default, and even `nofollow` is more of a hint than a block. The term was invented to make the normal behaviour of the web sound like a special feature you can pay for. There are dozens of these terms, all designed to artificially flatten and simplify, in a way which is deeply harmful. #### And then there’s “link building” “Link building” might be the most damaging term of all. It makes the whole process sound mechanical. Industrial. Like you’re stacking identical units until you hit quota. The phrase itself erases the reality that the value of a link is inseparable from *why* it exists, *who* created it, and whether trust flows through it. Yes, you can “build” a collection of links. You can even hit your targets. But if those links aren’t grounded in trust, context, and mutual relevance, you haven’t built anything with lasting value. You’ve just arranged numbers in a report. Real links – the kind that carry authority, relevance, and resilience over time – aren’t built. They’re *earned*. They emerge from relationships, collaboration, and shared purpose. #### The web is not a ledger The mental model that search engines are just “counting backlinks” is hopelessly outdated. The web is not a static ledger of inbound links. It’s a living, constantly shifting graph of relationships – semantic, topical, and human. For a search engine, a link is one of many signals. It inherits meaning from: * **The page it’s on** – its quality, trustworthiness, and topic. * **The words around it** – anchor text, surrounding copy, and implicit associations. * **The nature of the source** – how it connects to other sites and pages, its history, and its place in the graph. * **The wider topology** – how that connection interacts with other connections in the ecosystem. This is the reality that “backlink count” and “link building” both paper over – the algorithm is modelling *relationships of trust*, not transactions. #### Search engines, LLMs, and agents don’t care about “backlinks” Here’s the crucial shift: the future of discovery won’t be “ten blue links” driven by link-counted rankings. LLMs and AI agents don’t think in backlinks at all. They parse the web as a network of *entities*, *concepts*, and *connections*. They care about how nodes in that network relate to each other – how trust, authority, and relevance propagate along the edges. Yes, they may still evaluate links (directly, or indirectly). In fact, links can be a useful grounding signal: a way of connecting claims to sources, validating relationships, and reinforcing topical associations. But those links are never considered in isolation. They’re evaluated *alongside everything else* – content quality, author credibility, entity relationships, usage data, and more. That makes artificially “built” links stand out. Contextless, untrusted, or irrelevant links are easy to spot against the backdrop of a richer, more integrated model of the web. And easy to ignore. In that world, a “backlink” as the SEO industry defines it – a one-way token of PageRank – is almost meaningless. What matters is the *relationship*: why the link exists, what it connects, what concepts it reinforces, and how it integrates into the larger graph. #### Why the language persists The reason we still say “backlink” and “link building” isn’t because they’re the best descriptors. It’s because they’re useful – for someone else. Vendors, brokers, and marketplaces *love* these terms. They make something messy, relational, and human sound like a measurable commodity. That makes it easier to sell, easier to buy, and easier to report on. If you frame links as “relationships” instead, you make the job harder – and you make the value harder to commoditise. Which is precisely why the industry’s resale economy prefers the simpler fiction. #### Optimising for the wrong web If your mental model is still “get more backlinks” or “build more links,” you’re optimising for the wrong web. The one we’re already in doesn’t reward accumulation – it rewards *integration*. It rewards being part of a meaningful network of relevant, trusted, and semantically connected entities. That means: * Stop chasing raw counts. * Stop buying neat-sounding products that exist to make reporting easy. * Start building relationships that make sense in context. * Think about how your site fits into the broader topical and semantic ecosystem. * Design links so they *deserve* to exist, and make sense from both ends. #### The takeaway There is no such thing as a backlink. There is no such thing as “DoFollow links,” “journalist links,” or “niche edits.” And if “link building” is your strategy, you’re already thinking in the wrong dimension. There are only relationships – some of which happen to be expressed through HTML `<a>` elements. If you want to thrive in a search environment increasingly shaped by AI, entity graphs, and trust networks, stop flattening complexity and start earning your place in the web’s map of meaning. Stop chasing backlinks. Stop buying fictions. Start building relationships worth mapping., There’s No Such Thing as a Backlink, Jono Alderson, 01k2f8z02cqtzz90nh9khwxc6c.