This should have been the point but what is written in the article is different and that’s why all my comments addressed to you.

“One way to get your site some instant link love is to post content on social networking sites” [that’s incorrect and is from the original article] is different than “get backlinks from social sites that share the love” [that’s correct and is from your last comment].

As a matter of fact we agree the same principle. The problem was that I was talking about the article and you were talking about how the article should have been written

But none of that was the point. The point was to get backlinks from social sites that share the love. There are still a few that do (for now) so use them.

Are you honestly going to argue that?

And yes, I still agree that this is about linking for ranking purposes and not traffic. In fact I’ve never mentioned linking for traffic! I’ve just pointed out that the relevancy, or the more likely the link is to be clicked on by a human (doesn’t mean that they have to, ever will… hell or even if a human ever sees it) the more weight it carries. Couple that without the nofollow and you are rocking.

But… I’ve been saying that all along.

Social networking sites are good to get traffic, but this article is not about traffic

“…theory is sound even if the example isn’t.”

Which means that I agree with you when you say that the example is bad. But you did read that didn’t you?

As for link love, we all know that relevant links tend to share a bit more love. Links from relevant “authority” sites carry more weight than small unrelated sites. This is pretty much universally accepted. Mostly because the search engines do (or at least trying to) give weight to links that a real person would click on. But you knew that right?

You’re confusing two different terms: link building and traffic generation. If you read the article - you didn’t, did you? - then you see what the article is about

Stumbleupon was an example. Have they added it yet? I don’t know because I don’t use it at present. But the theory is sound even if the example isn’t.

Got it?

I was commenting the article where it is mentioned for example Stumbleupon as an example of site that will give you instant “link love”. Well, Stumbleupon is adding the nofollow attribute.

Got it?

Then again, you shouldn’t be posting anything anywhere if you don’t expect to at least get a human clicking through. Relevant links is what it is all about.

Here is my question: How can your website get instant “link love” from these social networking sites if the backlinks are nofollow links?