Jump to content

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

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



SEO Class in Chicago, IL

Learn How To Optimize Your Website on July 26, 2013


Looking for personalized in-depth SEO training among your peers?



High Rankings is offering a 1-day customized SEO training class in Chicago. Class size is limited so please sign-up now if you want in!



 


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
- - - - -

Internal Links


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 mcanerin

mcanerin

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Posted 28 August 2003 - 06:25 PM

Hi All,

I expect this topic to wander a bit, so I worded the title to allow for it omg

Before it does, though, I'd like to know if anyone knows how internal links are handled by the SE's, particularly (as usual) the big G.

Here is a situation: Imagine you are spouting off about the topic de jour for particular web page, and it occurs to you that some people would like a definition or more info about a particular word or phrase.

Being a helpful and wonderful person (D.R. Jekyll, Webmaster :learn: ), you link from that word or phrase to a definitions page, using the #bookmark setting to go directly to the spot on the page where the definition is.

For other words or phrases, you link to other pages or sections in your site that are on topic. In some cases, the definition is on a different part of the same page, and you helpfully bookmark it for your esteemed guests.

Then, suddenly, Mr. Hyde, SEO :) , shows up and notices that by linking from a certain phrase to another one of your pages, you are increasing the likelyhood that the second page will be considered relevant to a search engine. The twisted mind of Mr Hyde then begins to wonder...

"Hey, if www.mysite.com is considered to be a different page from www.mysite.com/index.html, would www.mysite.com/page.htm be also different from www.mysite.com/page.htm#definition ?"

Would the bookmark be a way of increasing the keyword count of the incoming link? Would a page with bookmarked links to itself actually be able to increase it's own relevance? How odd. Yet there doesn't seem to be a reason for it not to, on the surface.

Comments?

<a href="http:www.mysite.com/keyword.htm#keyword">Keyword</a>
<p>Filler Text of Some Sort</p>

<a name="keyword">Keyword Definition</a>


Ian

#2 mopacfan

mopacfan

    HR 3

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 29 August 2003 - 03:55 PM

This is a great question. As much as I hate bookmark links, I wonder if they count since they are on the same page? My guess would be no. Has anyone done any 'testing' of this concept?

#3 compar

compar

    Just Purrfect

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Waterloo Ontario Canada

Posted 29 August 2003 - 06:09 PM

I think the answer is pretty easy to find. Have you ever seen them reported by Google. I don't thinks so.

If that really worked you could link every word on the page to the next word and then the last word to the first word on the following page etc.

No It can't possibly work.

#4 Mel

Mel

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts

Posted 29 August 2003 - 10:20 PM

Somewhat appropriate to this topic is one of Googles newer patents (US Patent office link) which seeks to rerank pages so that not only are all pages from your site removed from the list of links in a set of pages relevant to a keyword query, but all pages on the same class C IP address are removed.

While I have no idea if Google are implementing this patent in thier algo, it does seem to indicate that G. at least may wish to devalue internal links.

#5 compar

compar

    Just Purrfect

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Waterloo Ontario Canada

Posted 30 August 2003 - 12:55 PM

Somewhat appropriate to this topic ...... but all pages on the same class C IP address are removed.

Boy, I would have a problem with that. A Class C is a contiguous block of 256 unique IP addresses. Now if a hosting company specializes in providing hosting to some particular market niche he could legitimately have 256 arms length sites on his server. These site would all have very similiar content and as such links between them would be very relevant.

If Google really integrated this into their algo then a hosting company could never host two site with similar content without diminishing their potential for relevant links.

As far as Google showing or valuing internal links, paricularily navigational links I've never understood why. The fact that there is a link on my site map to my "point of sale" software page does absolutely nothing to increase the value of that page even though the anchor text is one of my most important key words.

#6 Toadally

Toadally

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 30 August 2003 - 12:57 PM

Check out this site http://www.tuttibella.com/. It has a PR6 and Google shows 1600 backlinks. All but one are internal links! Maybe there's more than one but that is all I found. Wow. All their product pages have at least PR4.

#7 Scottie

Scottie

    Psycho Mom

  • Admin
  • 6,294 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC

Posted 30 August 2003 - 01:25 PM

Interesting- not one of those pages has a dynamic-looking URL... not even a subdirectory. They all "appear" to be in the root directory. And it is a Yahoo store.

#8 Toadally

Toadally

    HR 2

  • Active Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 30 August 2003 - 01:51 PM

Oops- I just checked All the Web and they show over 9700 external links! They must be all low PR. They must have had a big budget to create all those static product pages. I wish my product pages would get indexed like that. They rank quite well for their keywords also.

#9 compar

compar

    Just Purrfect

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Waterloo Ontario Canada

Posted 30 August 2003 - 02:40 PM

Using the www.tuttibella.com -site:www.tuttibella.com
search which give all external links the number is 1,690.

And using the www.tuttibella.com site:www.tuttibella.com
search which gives all internal links the number is 2,360.

Using the link:www.tuttibella.com
search the number is 1,610.

This last command should be both internal and external as long as they meet Googles criteria for listing which which use to be considered to be PR4 or better. That general wisdom is now under suspicion by some of the authorities on this forum.

But explain this; Google reports a total of 4,050 internal and external links using the site: search. They only report 1,610 with the link: search. Where did the other 2,440 go unless Google rejected them for something other than a low PR??????

Pretty impressive numbers for both internal and external links in any case.

#10 BrianR

BrianR

    Is it just me, or is it getting cooler in the evenings...?

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,621 posts
  • Location:Chester, UK

Posted 30 August 2003 - 03:11 PM

So does that mean that the 'link:' command gives only links (external or internal) to pages that are PR4ish, but that the 'site:' commands list all links irrespective of PR??

BrianR

#11 compar

compar

    Just Purrfect

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Waterloo Ontario Canada

Posted 30 August 2003 - 03:20 PM

So does that mean that the 'link:' command gives only links (external or internal) to pages that are PR4ish, but that the 'site:' commands list all links irrespective of PR??

BrianR

That's certainly what it would look like. How else would you explain it?

#12 Debra

Debra

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • Location:Williamsburg, Virginia

Posted 30 August 2003 - 03:54 PM

I wish my product pages would get indexed like that.


I'm assuming, based on the number of pages they have indexed, they used Trusted Feed!!

#13 compar

compar

    Just Purrfect

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Location:Waterloo Ontario Canada

Posted 30 August 2003 - 04:29 PM

I'm assuming, based on the number of pages they have indexed, they used Trusted Feed!!

Can you explain Trusted Feed? I've seen it mentioned before but I'm not sure exactly what it means.

#14 Debra

Debra

    HR 7

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts
  • Location:Williamsburg, Virginia

Posted 30 August 2003 - 04:47 PM

I know very little, hopefully someone else will come and explain it more fully but here's what I can share:

If you have 500+ pages they can be submitted to some of the SE's directly through this process. You pay of course.

As far as I know, AV, Teoma/AskJ, Fast and Ink are the ones doing it.

It's touted as being a great resource for catalog sites.

Which <lol> in retrospect, doesn't address Toadally's original comment since Google doesn't do Trusted Feed.

If we are interested in discussing Trusted Feed further, I'll split if off this thread since it falls outside the realm of link building.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users