...rather the number of links you need is proportional to the number of pages competing for the phrase. Less competition requires fewer links to rank. More competition requires more links.

Consider a made up word like grabandle. None of the major search engines are returning any results for the word and with good reason. Im probably the first person to type the made up word grabandle on a web page. Ive now typed it twice and would expect that not too long after this post is indexed it will rank #1 for the word.

Assuming no one else decides to adopt my new made up word and use it, this post should require exactly zero links to rank for the phrase simply because the competition for the phrase is also zero. This post should soon be the only relevant web page for the query grabandle. No competition requires fewer, and in this case zero links to rank.

Now consider the phrase real estate. Google is estimating there are 549,000,000 results for the phrase. Looking at the #1 result for the phrase Yahoo shows 352,000 links into the site and 249,000 into links to the specific page ranking.

I wont expect this page to rank for real estate any time soon and neither should you. More competition requires more links.

If we were to graph how much link juice or linking power you need given the competition that graph might look something like:

Starting at the origin with zero competition you need zero link juice. As the competition increases so too does the link juice required to rank. While Ive made no attempt to actually plot how many links (and the associated linking power) are needed for various phrases, I would think the link juice necessary would increase exponentially as shown on the graph. The curve, of course, might look different in reality. The main point to take is that as competition increases the link juice needed to rank well also increases.

Please note the use of link juice or power in the graph as opposed to the number of links. Links arent equal. Links have different signs of quality. A link from a forum signature is clearly less valuable than a link from the New York Times. There isnt a 1:1 correlation between links, which is why the graph above refers to link juice instead of the shear number of links.

The above is all fine and good, but probably nothing earth shattering. Common sense alone should tell you it will take more links to rank when there are more sites and pages wanting to rank for a given phrase. So how can we use the information?

If youre starting a new site in a competitive market such as real estate you should realize its going to take a considerable amount of time to rank for the more generic phrases on your topic. Its going to take a long time to build the links required to rank for the most generic real estate. Knowing that you should understand that a long term strategy is going to be necessary to rank for that phrase. The tactics of the moment are not going to be your salvation. Youd sooner want to look at what will be working tomorrow or next year.

If your business model doesnt allow for such long term results youd need to look at other ways to market your site such as pay per click advertising. Youd also look for long tail keywords you could rank for much quicker.

On the other hand say you do have a site thats acquired a good deal of link juice over the years. Even if youre not already in a specific market you may be able to rank well for phrases simply by using them on the page. You already have the juice, or near the juice, to rank. If CNN covers a story theres a good chance the story will rank for the phrases used in the article, based on all the links that site has.

Odds are your somewhere in between the extremes. You have some link juice, though not enough to rank for anything you want. You have enough to rank for some phrases, but not quite enough to rank for others. How can you tell what you can and cant rank for?

Your server logs will tell you what youre ranking for. Theyll also tell you what you could be ranking for. As an example this post on centering with css routinely picks up search traffic for long tail phrases that include words like css, center, centering, etc. A phrase like css center, while not the most searched for phrase is likely a phrase the post could rank well for with a little optimization for the page. Not necessarily a great phrase, but one that has a little more competition and can bring a few more visitors each month.

My search logs tell me that I have enough, or close to enough, link juice to rank for the css center phrase should I want and some on-page seo might well be enough to bring in search traffic for the phrase.

Your real estate site might be ranking well for San Diego, real estate for sale and other similar phrases. That might also indicate youre ready to rank for California real estate or something something somewhat larger with presumably more competition than San Diego real estate.

By showing what youre ranking for now, your server logs are intimating what you can rank for next. Your server logs will tell you qualitatively what you can do with your current link juice.

Getting back to the original question, How many links do you need? the question again isnt one thats going to be answered by a specific number of links. You dont need a specific answer to the question, though. Consider the competitiveness of the phrase and look through your server logs to determine if you potentially have the juice to rank for the phrase.

If you do, then start optimizing for the phrase. If you dont look for phrases a little further along the search tail. Choose a phrase that is closer to the head than you can currently rank for, but close enough that you can rank for with a little work. Once youre ranking for those somewhat more competitive phrases start the process again.

Do you use your server logs to tell you what you can rank for?

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Furl