Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Linking To Irrevelant Sites
Posted 10 November 2005 - 01:16 PM
Posted 10 November 2005 - 01:46 PM
I think search engines can easily decipher whether a link with anchor text is somehow relevant to the content of the page that the link relies on. That being said, the link may be more beneficial if it is somehow related to the topic of the page as opposed to if it is totally unrelated but that is not always the case.
Posted 10 November 2005 - 03:24 PM
(…and I know we shouldn’t look at G’s PageRank, but here
I go..So correct me if you know more definitive…)
Relevance (or should I say irrelevance) I feel is a big issue
when it come to sites that are excellent and that have a lot
of weight, and therefore rank well, most of the time, and let's
say have a PR of 8...
The other day I was researching some keywords for a client
and when I looked at some of the sites that were ranking for
this phrase, the very first site had a PR-0. A few more sites had
fair PR and then about number seven was a site with a PR of 8.
It seems to me that this not only shows that PR isn’t as valuable
as many want to think it is, but, more importantly I believe the
site with PR-0 and ranked in the first position was there due to
a major factor of its relevance.
I would venture to say that if my site was very relevant to this site
that ranked #1 with PR-0 I would be better off getting a link from
this PR-0 site than from the PR-8 site.
When we know that G (and as far as that goes the rest of the SEs)
want to do is provide sites that are relevant to their searchers,
relevancy is obviously very important. So while the text with the
<a> Tags is important, the relevance of the page it is on will make
it that much more, or less, important, would only make sense.
Posted 11 November 2005 - 01:29 PM
It's speculation, but I think that the surrounding (unlinked) text makes a difference and can give the search engines a footprint to possibly discount links. That's why, imho, it's a good idea to not only use variations of the anchor text so it's not always the same for every inbound link, but switch up the language in your description too.
Posted 11 November 2005 - 06:15 PM
I do believe that the Google algorithm has clearly improved and that Googlebombing is not going to work into the future, but why is this still possible?
Posted 11 November 2005 - 06:18 PM
Posted 11 November 2005 - 06:37 PM
I think you're correct. I suppose relevancy comes in to play on the page that the inbound link is coming from.
Posted 11 November 2005 - 06:50 PM
Posted 11 November 2005 - 07:19 PM
It's got nothing to do with knowing algos. All you have to know is anchor text keywords can make a site rank highly! And lots and lots of them can make it rank really really highly.
It also helps when there are very few legitimate pages that are focused on the phrase. That's why Google bombs are generally for silly phrases that nobody else would want to optimize for, i.e. miserable failure.
Relevancy doesn't have to necessarily come into play at all.
Posted 27 November 2005 - 03:30 PM
I hear that google is stopmping down on irrelevant links in the new update...
To cut down on people putting their links all over the place to get better PR
Any truth in that?
That Aussie Bloke
Posted 27 November 2005 - 03:51 PM
Since it would be impossible to really know what link was truly relevant to another, I just don't see how it could be true.
Posted 27 November 2005 - 05:01 PM
Honest question to SEO gurus (which I'm not): am I stupid to have that attitude?
Posted 27 November 2005 - 05:02 PM
Posted 27 November 2005 - 06:34 PM
Why do you say it's impossible, Jill? Google makes a living of saying a site is or is not relevant to a search term. Why can't their algo sniff a site's relevance to a link? Granted, it seems a tougher nut to crack, but can we say Google isn't trying?
Truly relevant may never be possible, but reasonably relevant I can happening soon.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users