Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

How To Do It Right ?


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#16 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,038 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 28 May 2014 - 09:11 AM

Stop over-thinking the whole thing or you will never decide which is 'best'.

 

 

The ONLY things that matters are:

 

A: What makes most sense for real people.

 

B: What would  you find 'best' for site maintenance.

 

 

Why do you NEED a predefined structure?

 

After all the simplest method is usually the best.

 

The logic is;

 

The URLs you link to most, are the ones that YOU are suggesting are 'important' among the collection of URLs you call a 'site'



#17 reseo

reseo

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 04:26 PM

@Chris:

thank you sooo much again for your input. 

And yeah, you are absolutely right.. I need to stop over thinking it. 

 

I just try to get a clear picture first. I guess all the topics about internal linking confused me more as it should.

 

Your given answers "A+B" seem to be the most relevant a valid way to do it.

 

 

@predefined structure:

actually, I am not looking for an absolute predefined structure. I understand that you can have multiple options. And a predefined structure, or let's call it preset, might work for some sites, but might not work for others.

I just try to nail down some basic rules I always should consider. And before I start my new project, I just want to make sure my structure and internal setup is right from the beginning. Meaning, avoiding or having any major errors.

 

Ok... I will try to break my issues down into smaller steps......  

 

so here we go...  first step:

I read the internal linking article from moz, which can be found here:

http://moz.com/learn/seo/internal-link

 

They illustrate a pyramid structure - and what they write makes all logical sense.

 

However, when I look at the graphic... one question came up: How do you interpret or read the graphic ?

vpgp936uol3z1ymfg.jpg

 

as you can see, I could read every "black line or connection line" just linking downwards.

But I could also read it that the pages are linked downwards and upwards.

 

 

So like mentioned before: First comes first...

 

What does that illustration mean ?


Edited by reseo, 28 May 2014 - 04:32 PM.


#18 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,987 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 04:36 PM

You should probably ask over there at Moz.



#19 reseo

reseo

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 12:02 AM

Hmm... kinda confused now... do I miss here something ? Or are the folks over at moz just simple guys you don't like to refer to?

Hmmmm... well sorry if I triggered something I am simple not aware of.

Hmmm... anyways the pyramid illustration is reflecting the same illustration you mentioned in your article.

So it's not just something I could read at the mentioned article... I mean... I just stumbled upon this moz page trying to find more information.

However, even after reading your article I was not able to identify if PAGE A links to Page B only or like illustrated also the other way around.

And yeah sorry.. If I know not to mention the word moz... not a big deal .. just need to know what's going on.

Well then... I hope I didn't hurt anyone...
hope that make sense,
all the best and till later. ..

#20 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,038 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 29 May 2014 - 03:37 AM

 

I read the internal linking article from moz

 

You should probably ask over there at Moz.

Or better still .... STOP reading the pseudo scientific  drivel that they produce.



#21 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,038 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 29 May 2014 - 04:13 AM

The idea of there being "an ideal structure" that will ensure 'results' is just wrong!

 

If you want to examine a navigation structure that simply works, take a look at Wikipedia, sure it may seem totally haphazard, with little or no thought or planning put into it, but it works ... for EVERY kind of user.

 

According to the "experts" and their meanderings, Wikipedia URLs should never see light of day in search results because they have no uniformity in the linking of their pages. Every URL links to wherever it needs to that is RELATED to the topic, what they fail to figure out in their formulaic approach is that it is that very "couldn't care less where it links, just as long as it makes sense to REAL users" that makes Wikipedia URLs be treated as an authoratitve 'hub' for the topic it is about. By users and search engines.

 

This garbage about "link pyramids", "link wheels", the now infamous "Trapezoidal Linking Matriflux" or the little known "Asynchronous - NType - Universal - Superlinker" are just flights of fancy by people who have a vested interest in making the mugs believe and buy their "tools".

 

 

Personally I liken the SEO "experts" to T.V. "Evangelists", because they are both selling "salvation" based on a fantasy that no rational being should give credence to.



#22 torka

torka

    Vintage Babe

  • Moderator
  • 4,636 posts
  • Location:Triangle area, NC, USA, Earth (usually)

Posted 29 May 2014 - 08:59 AM

The big problem is you're operating from a false premise to start with, as revealed in the thread title: "How to do it right?" This implies you think there is one "right" way of linking. That is untrue, and all the subsequent confusion stems from this original misunderstanding. If any site or article or "expert" opinion has lead you to believe there is one "optimal" link structure that will guarantee success (with all others leading to inevitable failure), you should stop reading/listening to that source right away.

 

The truth is actually rather liberating. Turns out, there are any number of "right" ways to link. Link structures don't have to be symmetrical, they don't have to fall into neat hierarchies or organized pyramids. They don't need to be color-coded or even planned all that meticulously in advance. There are perfectly successful sites out there where every page links to every other page in a massive spiderweb, and there are others where the pages link in a strict linear progression, and everything in between.

 

The only thing you need to be concerned about is leading your customers and prospects quickly and intuitively to where you most want them to go.

 

Create overall site navigation that makes sense, that enables people to easily jump directly to your most important pages and clearly leads them down the right path to your less important pages. (Jared Spool says our navigation should make it easy for them to "follow the scent of information.")

 

Then link directly from one page to another as it makes sense to do so. Don't force links where they don't belong, and don't omit those that should be there, just because some "expert" told you that's the "best" way to link.

 

Stop thinking about linking for SEO, and start thinking about linking to help your site visitors navigate through the site. Try to think like one of your visitors. If you are new to the site, what information are you going to need first? What questions will you have? Where are those questions answered? If you're a returning visitor, how can you easily get back to where you left off?

 

When stop trying to figure out the (mythical) "one true linking" scheme for SEO, and instead really, seriously 100% focus on making your site as usable and easy and intuitive as possible for your human visitors, you will automatically create a linking structure that makes sense, which (as it happens) is also the preferred linking structure for search engines. It may be similar to one of the many diagrams you've posted here, or it may be completely different. And it may change (significantly) over time. No matter what, as long as you keep your visitors' needs top of mind at all times, it will be the "right" linking structure for your site at that moment.

 

My :02:

 

--Torka :oldfogey:


  • Jill likes this

#23 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,987 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 09:48 AM

Hmm... kinda confused now... do I miss here something ? Or are the folks over at moz just simple guys you don't like to refer to?

 

 

Not at all. It's just how would any of us know what the intent was of the person who created a diagram that we had nothing to do with?

 

Generally, I've always found it's best to go to the actual source rather than speculate, that's all.



#24 reseo

reseo

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 29 May 2014 - 09:21 PM

Hello Hello everyone ! Yes, this is clear language - now I do understand where you are all coming from. The "How to do it right" effect... I guess it's simple happening by exploring all kinds of different websites talking about that topic. Now I do understand what you mean by mentioning something like the "Trapezoidal Linking Matriflux" - that leads directly into: If you call now and buy it now, success a 100% and if you order 10 pieces you get a bubble gum for freeeeeee - lol; allright, allright.. I got it... there is no blueprint, there is no structure or law of buildings internal links, there is no one way do it right everything else is wrong, there is no formula that says: linking 101 - the one and only way to success !!! ok.. ok... I think it's just so easy to fall into that "trap" because.. I don't know how else to say.. the internet seems virtually infested with that content. And yes, so you find lot's of "SEO-Preachers" that just cause confusion. And when you start digging into that topic, trying to find information... yes.. my experience.. that's exactly where you land. @Jill: When I go back to your article.. I can see that you have been posting this little illustration: http://www.highranki...er_morville.jpg I know it still might sound silly... but when you created that illustration... what did you intend to communicate with that illustration ? How do you see the link connections from your little graphic ? Following all the answers given, my conclusion would be the following: [ust considering having two pages, indicated with Page A+B] Option 1: Page A links to Page B only Option 2: Page B links to Page A only Option 3: Page A links to Page B + Page B links to Page A We only have those three options - but there is no right or wrong in linking them together. Option 1 can be as right, as Option 2 and Option 3. What matters and what is right is if the navigation makes logical sense, and if the user can find links and their relevant content. That being said, you can have one of those three options - it's your personal choice, optimized for your specific project and navigation. period. Soo.. this would be my final conclusion ... if I am still tapping in the dark.. lol; well.. no worries.. just let me know ... I'll dig till I find my TREMORS... lol; so heck yeah.. awesome people - awesome forum - love this conversation !!!

#25 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,987 posts

Posted 30 May 2014 - 06:35 AM

That was just a picture to go along with the article. It could have just as well been a banana. 



#26 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,038 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 30 May 2014 - 07:48 AM

Now I do understand what you mean by mentioning something like the "Trapezoidal Linking Matriflux"

 

Actually the "Trapezoidal Linking Matriflux" is a joke, a spoof linking scheme that was invented right here, at this very forum a few years ago. And if you care to create an acronym from "Asynchronous - NType - Universal - Superlinker" you will find what it actually means.

 

The only "rules" anyone needs to know with regards to linking is:

 

Link directly to URLs you want your visitors to go to or ones that you consider relevant to the URL they are currently on.

 

AND

 

Provide a  means of "drilling down" to other URLs whilst keeping the "click count" less than 4 or 5 because REAL people get bored with clicking through link after link to get to a particular page.

 

That's why directories have failed to gain popularity and search engines are used by almost (if not definitly) everyone. Search results will take you EXACTLY where you need to be (hopefully) rather than landing on a 'home' page and having to click through several more links to get there.

 

It's not about the aesthetics or technicalities of the 'structure', it's ALL about the usability of it and getting your visitors from A to X without touching all points inbetween.

 

If your visitor has chosen what they want to purchase, you then want them in the "Express" lane to the checkout that takes them past stuff that only relates to their purchase, not via the bread, cakes, booze, DIY, clothes, household goods, kitchen appliances. etc. Give them the choice yes, but don't force it.

 

Navigation needs to guide NOT confuse, so the KISS (Keep It Simple [we're] Stupid) principle applies absolutely.

 

If you think search crawlers need a bit of help in the URL discovery department, just have a HTML sitemap that has every URL on the site linked ( http://www.bookemdanno.com/sitemap/ ) it also helps people 'search' the site as well.



#27 reseo

reseo

    HR 4

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts

Posted 31 May 2014 - 02:51 AM

Hello everyone,

thank you so much for all your comments. I still have some questions and points I am not totally clear.

Now, I do have a little surprise. I decided to make it easier and recorded just three short videos to show my issues.

I am so sorry about my english...lol; but I hope watching the short videos is so much easier and faster.
It also helps me to illustrate.

Ok. so here we go....

Video 01: Internal Link Structure - Spiders Part 1


Video 02: Internal Link Structure - Spiders Part 2


Video 03: Internal Link Structure - Link Juice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtYooqYmtio&feature=youtu.be

#28 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,145 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 01 June 2014 - 01:15 AM

If search engine spiders only followed links from the pages they know about, your illustrations would accurately reflect the situation on the Web. However, search engines use several different ways to find pages for their indexes. Here is a quick rundown of their options (as documented by search engineers across the past few years).
  • Using pages they already know about, they fetch those pages again and extract links from them
  • When a new domain is registered they immediately try to fetch the root URL
  • When a blog or news site sends a "ping" event to an RPC service (like Ping-o-Matic) they fetch the page
  • When a user submits a page for crawling through a Webmaster dashboard they may extract the links
  • They may formulate their own page names (guessing) for unfound pages
  • They may extract unlinked URLs from the text they find on various Web pages
  • They may fetch all the links they find in an XML sitemap file
So while it is good to have all your Web pages connected through links, the search engines will try to discover orphaned pages through various means. An orphaned page has no links pointing to it (even if only because attempts at linking were foiled by typos).

#29 Jill

Jill

    Recovering SEO

  • Admin
  • 32,987 posts

Posted 01 June 2014 - 10:05 AM

While that's true, Michael, they won't give very much (if any) weight to pages that aren't linked to very well. So it would be foolhardy to expect search engine traffic to them. 



#30 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,038 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 01 June 2014 - 02:17 PM

Search engines do not 'know' when a domain is registered unless the registrar posts a link in a "recently registered" page, so they cannot "immediately" go try to fetch the root URL content.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!