I've not had a problem, then again, I wasn't affected by Panda :)

Length of time depends on many factors. The main one is when Google comes round to cache the page.

Yeah, that one I figured. Was just wondering, like many have, if there's any point to continuing link building campaigns when it seems that many serps results seem to be somewhat independent of new links. Old links carry weight. But new links don't seem to do a lot. At least not initially. And maybe not nearly as much as before.

I have seen some really good benefit to above average links from related sites. I've also had to teak my internal link structure to maximize it though.

For instance, a page that was ranking nowhere for my main keywords moved up to #25 back in May and then moved up to #8 in July. Right now, it is the sixth SITE in the SERPs, but is in position #8 because two sites above it have two pages each in the SERPs (the #1 site and the #2 site both have their index pages listed and a second page listed).

But my backlinks were all gotten by hand by me and it has been very time consuming. Once I get higher in the SERPs (above the fold), I expect to receive more "natural" links (i.e., links that I don't have to beg for).

...when it seems that many serps results seem to be somewhat independent of new links.

You do raise a good point.

In my very narrow niche, one site that has been around for a long time but doesn't have a whole lot of links leapfrogged several sites ahead of it that have more links.

It might be that this site is older, and even though it has less links, the links are older, too.

but it might be that this company has been around for 25 years and has quite a bit of reputation. I don't think they do adwords, but they do banner advertising on some pretty prestigious online journals and other places. they have some youtube videos and seem to have a really nice newsletter.

Alas, for people like us who don't have the budget (yet) to advertise the way they do, the only other options are link building or adwords.

In my very narrow niche, one site that has been around for a long time but doesn't have a whole lot of links leapfrogged several sites ahead of it that have more links.

I've seen an identical occurrence with a competitor site in my own niche. The site has been around for years. It doesn't seem to get many links, but the existing links are old. It has bounded above many of the rest without developing new links, without being mentioned in social media (unlinked citations), without having much content (21 thin pages, that's it), and without having any new content (a given since they only have 21 pages. What's more, they don't blog, don't have a facebook page, don't tweet, yadda yadda. It simply seems to be a function of age.

I would be tempted to say that what is powering the site is due to user behavior, such as has been mentioned in other threads lately (i.e. bounce rate, time spent on site). However, those 21 pages are verrrrryyy thin and unsatisfying. I just don't think user behavior is the engine. I think its just a function of domain age and age of links.

Which brings me back to those question?

Is it still worth pursuing links? I would hope so.

Do we have to wait around forever for even the cleanest additions to our back links to have any push effect at all?

Do we have to wait around forever for even the cleanest additions to our back links to have any push effect at all?

I don't think we do... but it might be because my niche is not ultra-competitive.

But new links don't seem to do a lot.

All "old links" start out as "new links".

I build links for one reason: if they benefit my visitors. Turns out most times that also benefits me!