Google Placing Less Emphasis On Link Popularity? Options

[webpromoter]

Hi,

I don't know if this is true or not, but as Google is updating PRs, there is a rumor being circulated that they're now placing less emphasis on link popularity. Can someone point to a credible source on this topic?

Link popularity initially may have seemed like a good idea, albeit a flawed one, as a factor for relevancy, but as we all know, as soon as the word gets around, people would try to exploit the SE algorithm, sometimes through questionable means (eg. link farming, link buying, etc). I don't see any ethical problems with SEO in general, but since SEs have to constantly evolve to keep their systems from being abused, I wonder if many of us are allocating too much of our time & resources to gain higher link popularity?

[Randy]

Two different (sort of) topics in that question webpromoter.

Some are saying that Google is giving less weight to PR or PageRank, which is sort of their internal link popularity/site authority measurement.

Others refer to it simply as Link Popularity no matter what Google wants us to call it.

PR, in and of itself, is not a determining factor and hasn't been for a long time. If it ever was.

Link Popularity is still a stronger force with Google than it is with any other search engine. Especially when combined with a bit of anchor text manipulation/focus.

Is it less than before? Some are, some aren't.

If you want proof of the sheer power of links and anchor text where Google is concerned all you need do is look at some of the more famous Googlebombs. All of which are still very much in effect.

[Haystack]

I think Google is getting better at determining what links are somehow relevant to a site, thus adding another level to the value of inbound links. If that's the case, link popularity is as important as ever, but the makeup of your inbound link portfolio may need closer consideration.

[randfish]

I think Google is placing increased importance on local & subject-specific popularity, rather than global popularity, as they did in the PageRank Rules All era.

The popularity of a site doesn't indicate how on-topic it is, but if lots of sites about similiar subjects point to that site, then you've got something.

[searchlogix]

Google also remembers what site was clieked for a search terms and how many time it got clicks and determines the ranking of sites for that keyword next time.

Google does give emphasis on links but these should be from quality and theme based sites only else no effect on your sites' PR.

[chrishirst]

Google do not do any ranking on click tracking at all for SERPs only for adwords. And PR is not affected by links being themed or not, provided the page has PR to pass on it will be passed on.

This post has been edited by chrishirst: Mar 9 2005, 03:17 AM

[lisphacker]

Google do not do any ranking on click tracking at all for SERPs only for adwords.

How do you know this? The only data they would need to do this is already being supplied by the cookie.

[Aerik]

I've wondered about the click-tracking too - on the one hand, this would be a useful feedback look, a real user supplied vote on how useful a given result is for a search. On the other hand, this would give you a circular effect - the top results will always get the most clicks, and then they'd be more likely to be the top resutls, etc.

Anyone know for sure?
-Aerik

[Randy]

The only click tracking Google has ever done on the natural serps that I'm aware of was a little JS routine. It only showed the Ranking Position someone was clicking on, not the actual site they clicked on.

Of course I don't sit inside Googleplex either. Those are the only people would could provide an absolute answer.

[Debra]

think Google is placing increased importance on local & subject-specific popularity

Regarding your comment above and on the "subject specific popularity" comment specifically, what makes you think that?

[Debra]

I was hoping the person who posted the comment about local and subject specific popularity would respond but obviously that's not going to be the case. Too bad.... I'm genuinely interested in knowing why. Any other takers?

[sweepthelegnate]

perhaps this this is along the lines of what he was talking about?

http://www.socengine.com/seo/guide/topic-sensitive.html

The last subject is PageRank, which is becoming a less critical piece in Google's algorithm, with probably credit going to increased theming. Topic sensitive sites are less likely to have the exceptionally high PageRank of the Internet industry's giants, but these pages are more 'relevant' to the search query.

it's something he wrote anyway...

[Debra]

Thanks Nathan for pulling that. I'm not really sure what was meant and obviously we'll never know since the poster didn't return!

[Martin C]

I'm not really sure what was meant and obviously we'll never know since the poster didn't return!

In the absence of the original poster I would just say that although not today or tomorrow I think it is a safe bet that over time links will become less of a factor for Google.

By the time it does they will have probably served their purpose but I do think as a theory it is fundamentally flawed as I do the sand boxing and site ageing. However, for people who have taken the time to undertstand how they work their existance does allow those people to gain an advantage.

I think links and ageing will all remain factors (be they a lot less significant though) but I would predict that as technology improves content will become the be all and end all which if they can get it right would probably be what it should all be about - but then again maybe that is too simplistic.

As will all technology, and I guess life in general, just when people think they have discovered "the" answer what they find is that really all they have done is discovered the next few questions.

[WeRASkitzzo]

I think links and ageing will all remain factors (be they a lot less significant though) but I would predict that as technology improves content will become the be all and end all which if they can get it right would probably be what it should all be about - but then again maybe that is too simplistic. 

I am no expert but I would tend to think that it is too simplistic. If content becomes the top dog then wouldn't we return to the keyword stuffed nonsensical pages ranking high? I mean I realize G would come up with ways to determine validity but for every algorithm to make sure its valid there will be ones to abuse the system. Who knows though, I might be making it overly simple as well. Maybe the answer is somewhere in between...