105 replies to this topic

[qwerty]

I thought only links TO my site would have any effect on my ranking.

That's right, Dodger. The number of links from a given page on your site doesn't affect you at all. It just lowers the amount of PR boost the pages you're linking to receive.

[Scottie]

So this means my links to other sites are watered down in value the more I have?

Yes

But do these links to external sites from my site effect my ranking/placement ?

They can if you are designated an authority (in a positive way) or if you link to bad neighborhoods (in a negative way).

If I link to sites that have low ranking does it drag me down?

No

If I link to sites of high PR does it help me?

No

[dodger]

Thank you all very much - a few points now clarified once and for all.

btw - there's no email notification in here as in webmasterworld ?

Whoops ! just found it

[Jill]

Dodger, there's email notifications. Check your "my controls" settings to make sure you have it on.

And welcome! I think I forgot that before!

Jill

[dodger]

thanks Jill

[gototom]

On the other hand, if you're just trading links and linking to anything because they'll link to you, you'll probably end up with some problems.

Hi Jill,

I have a lot of respect for your knowledge.

I do not see ranking results that prove what you are saying in this case.

Let's say you want to build a Directory and you like the idea of having links /ads on other web sites that people might click on. Before PR was such a big deal, and for some people still today the primary focus of exchanging links is to increase traffic by people seeing the links and clicking on them. If you exchange links with high quality sites (high PR)...

What problems would you end up with? What data / evidence can you provide? Not theoretical information but search engine rankings that prove your point.

I am just trying to learn more and am starting to question some of the generally accepted best SEO practices I have read about in the past. Thank you in advance for your help and information.

[qwerty]

I don't have any objective evidence for you, but I think you and Jill may not be talking about the same thing.

When she said

if you're just trading links and linking to anything because they'll link to you, you'll probably end up with some problems.

she was referring to the idea that linking to such things as FFA link pages and link farms could harm you.

From Google's webmaster guidelines:

Don't participate in link schemes designed to increase your site's ranking or PageRank. In particular, avoid links to web spammers or "bad neighborhoods" on the web as your own ranking may be affected adversely by those links.

But your question was

If you exchange links with high quality sites (high PR)... What problems would you end up with?

And that's not the kind of practice that would lead to such a problem.

[gototom]

Thank you.

[gototom]

Hi,

I do not go to the forums much, this is a good forum and topic.

Scottie has a lot of good information.

Scottie where did you learn about:

Google has stated they do not index more than 100 links per page.

Also I see that you believe strongly in the theme based linking.

Please tell where I kind find more proof on that?

How do you explain a top ranking for an extremely competitive keyword phrase like search engine optimization, when the #1 ranked company has over 12,000 external links? Do the links that are related have precedence? How would Google know?

Also I have a general problem with the whole theme related thing. For example: If I purchase a vacuum cleaner and like it and give a link to that company or they are a client of mine and I give a link to them why should this be rated different (less) then if I give a link to a SEO company. I may be better at rating vacuum cleaners then picking good SEO companies. I realize most SEO experts agree with what you are saying, and that you can argue that I should be better at picking SEO companies not vacuum cleaners. However I could know a lot about both.
I just do not see excellent proof of what you are saying by analyzing top ranked sites for there respective keyword phrases.

Thank you in advance for any more data / evidence you can provide. I am not talking about theoretical data / evidence, I am talking about real results in the search engine rankings.

[Scottie]

Hi Gototom-

Good questions!

I believe Googleguy (a representative of Google) stated the 100 link limit a while back- try searching at WebmasterWorld for Googleguy's posts.

On the others, I have two industry directories right now that rank #1 for their keyphrases- I believe that is due in large part to the fact that the incoming and outgoing links are very narrowly focused on that industry. Of course, each one is attached to a commercial site as well, boosting the rankings for the site in total.

I also believe Google's recent patent application is going to result in higher rankings for sites that have links from related sites.

[qwerty]

I believe Googleguy (a representative of Google) stated the 100 link limit a while back- try searching at WebmasterWorld for Googleguy's posts.

That's also posted on Google's webmaster guidelines page:

Keep the links on a given page to a reasonable number (fewer than 100).

[Jill]

gototom, you are exactly right to question such blanket statements.

The fact is that I've seen plenty of proof that shows currently that a link is a link is a link.

Many companies have thousands of off-topic links that definitely help them in the search engine rankings. It's very easy to see this, as you said, by looking at some high ranked sites backlinks.

However, common sense tells me that over time, it would be in the engines best interest to attempt to count on-topic links much more than off-topic ones. Meaning that a long-term strategy would focus on on-topic links. Plus, the reason to look for links is because they bring traffic in their own right, but only if they're on-topic.

So sure, you can get thousands of links from anyplace online and it very much might help your rankings at the moment. Personally, I'd rather spend my time on long-term strategies that will help my site now and also many years from now.

Hope this helps!

Jill

[BrianR]

Meaning that a long-term strategy would focus on on-topic links. Plus, the reason to look for links is because they bring traffic in their own right, but only if they're on-topic.

Good point, Jill. And Scottie too - I think she made a similar point earlier in the thread.

BrianR

[gototom]

Meaning that a long-term strategy would focus on on-topic links. Plus, the reason to look for links is because they bring traffic in their own right, but only if they're on-topic.

I receive traffic from on and off topic links.

As an example I have links on hotel sites. Other hotels that see my links contact me about Internet Marketing consulting.

So I think it is a complex issue and that it is also difficult for Google to decide how to handle this topic. From a algorithm viewpoint.

[Jill]

So I think it is a complex issue and that it is also difficult for Google to decide how to handle this topic. From a algorithm viewpoint.

Agreed!

It's very easy for "ethical" SEOs to say that you should only get links from on-topic sites. But the truth of the matter is that links that are off-topic do indeed work.

Many of us have a utopian view of the Web and of search engines, and we are trying to shape things to our vision. Google should really be paying us for telling people all these silly things like only on-topic links work! It's great propaganda for them.

Personally, I wish very badly that off-topic links did not count and did not help sites get to the top. I think it's wrong and unfair, and it sucks when sites get to the top simply because they join a linking network that gets them there.

But that's too bad for me. Those things do work right now, and it makes me sad (and sick) when I see just how well it works.

I will never, ever promote it as a good strategy, however, because it's just wrong.



Jill