Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Posted 01 May 2009 - 04:33 AM
I am currently learning as much as I can about SEO techniques and I have a question about backlinks to my site.
I build many websites (i'm a web developer for a small web company) and when we build websites, we always include a generic footer on all pages of the websites we build and within that footer is always link back to our homepage of our corporate website. Now, when I look at all the backlinks google has indexed, I can see that many of them are coming from these footers on varied sites and most are deep links from within those sites and google has not ranked the deep linked pages, only the homepage.
My question is this: is it better to keep as many backlinks as possible from these sites, irrelevant of how deep those backlinks are and what the PR is, OR, should I only backlink from the homepage of these sites we build where we can see the PR is 4, 5 or 6 etc?
Many Thanks for reading.
Posted 01 May 2009 - 04:41 AM
Today's PR1 could be tomorrow's PR99.
Plus SE's index pages not sites, so one asumes all G! sees is one page linking to another, it's 'depth' is irrelivant, there is no depth, one page links to another, and the linking page passes what ever PR it has to the links on that page.
And as long as the pages are seen by the SE and not orphaned, they will pass PR juice on to your main site, what might be a deep link page to you, could become their most impotant / highest PR / most visited and linked to page on their site a few months down the road.
Of coure, it's dependent on the page content, the 'thank you' page isn't likely to give much PR or ever be linked to, but it's still a link
Posted 01 May 2009 - 05:10 AM
Yes, no ... mmmm
Well, in a footer it seems to get a little less value than in an article - in fact in the main content page links are much better.
I used to enjoy decent rankings from footer links, in fact I used to get them to link to a special linking page and create special "optimised" loaded from xml page thing going on - helped my rankings no end and it was of course controllable!!!
Today that sort of blatant manipulation might be frowned on and we have seen that the millions of footer links some people have don't appear to have any real power in Google (Yahoo maybe).
If you do use footer links make sure they vary from site to site - "Web design" on one, "Web Development" on another "website design" etc.. just to make it look slightly more natural... but if possible get a genuine page linking to yours.
And make sure it NEVER is wrapped up in something saying sponsored, or paid until x in comments ... !
Posted 01 May 2009 - 05:13 AM
Posted 01 May 2009 - 09:08 AM
I believe that internal links are very important, (it is amazing how much influence you can have over SERPs using homepage links) but certainly I think that external links have some additional weight ... You disagree ?
I have frequently explained to non-seo people that they should look at it all as being literally page to page links, i.e. this page links to this page and has x value link juice, then that page links to these internal pages with this value of link juice - however thats over simplifying it, you could shape internal link juice in a site, but you would need external link juice to pump it up a bit (this is simplifying it still, but I guess its the way I think) ... but as with all things SEO, its liable to change so I could be out of date already ...
Posted 01 May 2009 - 09:43 AM
to me it makes sense that someone else 'voting' for your site carries more value than you 'voting' for yourself!
But the Guru's here have all said internal and external = same value in link juice.
So if internal links carry same weight, and *most* internal links are either menu structure or footer, same place every page and anchor text the same, this would imply that you are wrong to say footer links carry less weight.
I'm not trying to argue here, i'm trying to understand linking, how to link and the value of the link. and bottom line if PR sculpting is worth it!
Now if internal links carry less weight and because they are footer links they carry even less weight again, then perhaps PR sculpting on footer links is a waste of time as they carry no real weight to sculpt.
However, if footer links and internal links do not get 'downgraded' so to speak , then it is worth while.
Now if the HRF SEO gurus are right and a link, is a link, is a link, that makes the answer to the OP , footer links are fine!
And for me, my PR sculpt test is worth trying!
What you think?
Posted 01 May 2009 - 11:14 AM
I would love to say I know the right answer, but I am convinced a website is like an ecosystem in terms of page rank (I hate using the expression page rank, link juice and other buzz words, but you know what I mean), essentially links push subject related link juice to where you want it - but it is the inbound links that bring new juice into the system ...
In my head I know what I am trying to say,
One thing I love about SEO, is it still feels a bit like a game, almost second guessing the 'great' google, (tongue in cheek), but making sure that you do it in the right way ... I love looking at all the dodgy ways new clients have tried to game google and failed - and are surprised when the basics work!
Would love to hear from others on this subject, but yes - a link is a link, but I think that position of link (on a page) and how it 'feels' to google is important, which can all be done programmaticallly over the 10 years that thousands of engineers have been working on the algorithim!
Posted 01 May 2009 - 12:29 PM
Be careful to avoid overthinking your link strategy. What your company has been doing is probably far better (because it's a natural practice that did not take search engines into consideration) than trying to follow SEO community advice on "best practices".
When it comes to link building the best practice is the NATURAL practice. The more contrived and artificial a linking technique is (and the SEO industry contrives artificial techniques in its sleep), the less likely such links are to pass value over long periods of time.
Posted 01 May 2009 - 01:16 PM
I've heard stories both sides of the fence , footer links be more juicy and now less juicy.
I kinda felt thinking surely page position of a link is irrelivent when crawling a page, just the fact there's a link.
Even if I do tend to 'feel' external links *should* be worth more even if they actualy aren't.
It makes it seem if I created a web site and dynamically spawned a million links internally to a page I could get more IBLs than any website on the planet, there has to be some careful investigation by the SE's to evaluate internal links as opposed to external.
But I guess me creating another domain and spawning those million pages / links would be the same, as it's still 'Me' voting for 'Myself', just in another way.
OK you've convinced me with my own rambling logic, they must all carry the same value as a link, but there is far more scrutiny happening by the SE's to EVERY link, to work out 'real' PR value!
 It still makes sense internal count for less , even if not true
Edited by 1dmf, 01 May 2009 - 05:06 PM.
Posted 01 May 2009 - 04:26 PM
I think you mean PageRank not page rank. They are two different things.
In terms of old-fashioned straight out PageRank a link is a link is a link. But it's pretty clear that Google doesn't use just old fashioned PR as they mix it up with their 200+ other ingredients.
Just want to be clear on what we're talking about as people get mixed up with this stuff a lot. Which is why I made note that it's PageRank not page rank.
Posted 01 May 2009 - 05:10 PM
PR = the real value to the 'juice' G! gives a link.
PageRank = that useless green bar with an equally useless number you get in that totally useless G! toolbar, on the condition you promise to tell them about every site you ever visit for the rest of your useless toolbar life
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users