29 replies to this topic

[potpot]

I'm just wondering, what's the best criteria on choosing link partners? is it based from the PR, Alexa Rank, or its Link Popularity? Does PR0 site but with good traffic and relevant a good choice? thanks in advance!

[chris whewell]

I'm just wondering, what's the best criteria on choosing link partners? is it based from the PR, Alexa Rank, or its Link Popularity? Does PR0 site but with good traffic and relevant a good choice? thanks in advance!

Surely that depends on why you're linking in the first place. If it's just to help your page rank, then receiving a link from a page with a higher link than yours will be of more benefit than one from a lower, or equal ranking page. That somebody so 'high and mighty' likes your site is important.

If you are linking in order to increase traffic to your site, and resultant sales, then one with higher traffic and relevancy to your site will be better than a high pr site with low traffic and low relevancy.

You must also consider the link partner's site layout. Some people, (particularly if your site is highly relevant to their visitors) will place a prominent link to your site, maybe even within their content.

Da , so to speak.

Others will have all their links in a separate, cobweb-covered page, where no-one but link partners ever go.

A site with loads of links will risk your link getting 'lost in the crowd'.

[Jill]

I'm just wondering, what's the best criteria on choosing link partners?

Easy. You want to link to sites that will provide your own site visitors with the most value. So you should be linking to stuff that complements what you offer, that your visitors most likely would enjoy.

Linking to anything other than the above would just be silly.

[potpot]

correct me if i'm wrong, so what's really important is the relevancy and value of the site to mine, is that what you mean?

thanks for the input.. very much appreciated.

[chrishirst]

is it based from the PR, Alexa Rank, or its Link Popularity

No, No and No.

so what's really important is the relevancy and value of the site to mine

No.

What is important is;

"Would the visitors to this page also be interested in my page(s) and the products/service my pages offer."

[Jill]

correct me if i'm wrong, so what's really important is the relevancy and value of the site to mine, is that what you mean?

Kinda. But it's not about you. It's about the people who you're hoping will be visiting your site.

[potpot]

Kinda. But it's not about you. It's about the people who you're hoping will be visiting your site.

now i'm getting it..
thanks for all your help.

[DIGITALLYDEFINED]

So, are we saying here that linking in itself does not help in any way to the site?

My question is:

An indexed site with ZERO incoming link is EQUAL to An Indexed website with say 100 incoming links which are not at all directly related to what the site has to offer? (Directory links, links from other websites)

To a user it is not at all helpful, but does the site with 100 incoming links is taken a bit seriously by SE or not?

Please help me to clear the confusion.

[Jill]

So, are we saying here that linking in itself does not help in any way to the site?

No, I don't think anyone said that.

Links from your site to others don't necessarily help YOUR site. They help the site you're linking to, however.

And links TO your site, do help your site. And yes, any links pointing to your site are better than none. But some are more better than others!

[1dmf]

Is it fair to say that 'link juice' is more a 'cordial' these days?

Over used and abused and so have been watered down in the SE Algo?

Target, relevant links are all about boosting qualified traffic and not boosting SE rankings.

Is this now a fair view of inbound links?

[EtnaInteractive]

To answer the original post...my answer is "relevancy matters."

Links from your site to others don't necessarily help YOUR site.

Jill, this is purely anecdotal, but I have seen some evidence that outbound links may help your overall ranking in Google. It seems as though Google may favor hubs over dead-end sites with no outbound links. So, where useful and relevant to your visitors, linking out (as long as it does not compromise your sales objectives) might in fact be a good thing.

[1dmf]

hmm interesting, dead-end sites being less favoured.

Though outbound links to bad neighbourhoods can surely do far more harm than a couple of outbound links to some good sites do good.

[Jill]

Target, relevant links are all about boosting qualified traffic and not boosting SE rankings.

Is this now a fair view of inbound links?

No, not really. But in a way. Links have ALWAYS been about boosting targeted traffic and they still are. But those types of links will also boost SE rankings, because those kinds of links are actual votes for the target site. Real links provide real rankings. (I just finished my SEL article for this week which touches upon this. Look for it out on Thurs.!)

Jill, this is purely anecdotal, but I have seen some evidence that outbound links may help your overall ranking in Google. It seems as though Google may favor hubs over dead-end sites with no outbound links. So, where useful and relevant to your visitors, linking out (as long as it does not compromise your sales objectives) might in fact be a good thing.

Yes, others have discussed this here over the years as well. In fact, I believe our own Scottie coined the term "dead-end sites." Personally, I couldn't say whether it's a factor or not. It's really a tricky one to measure, and when I can't do that, I'm hesitant to give it the nod. Of course, you should always be happy and free to link out to great sites that you would like your visitors to know about. That's what linking has always been for and always will be for.

[DIGITALLYDEFINED]

Thank you Jill, for making the things clear out.

So any links to your website are Good, but some are MUCH BETTER then others.

[1dmf]

Looks like there is definately a hint of "Not all links are equal"