| Important Announcement: *Lost Your Search Engine Traffic?* |
May 16 2006, 03:25 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
HR 2 ![]() ![]() Group: Active Members Posts: 21 Joined: 16-May 06 User's local time: Sep 9 2010, 07:08 AM Member No.: 11,764 |
I know why linking matters (a link to a site is seen as a vote for the site, the more votes/links a site acquires the higher you will rank in the engines, particularly Google)
Obviously there are other factors eg: the quality of the link etc however is this really the case? Does an increase in inbound links have a direct impact on SERP’s? How do I measure the success of my inbound link strategy, and prove to my boss it is worth investing time? It is not simply a case of monitoring the increase of links; I need to be able tie this back to an increase in my rankings and subsequently traffic volumes or I are purely increasing links without understanding the benefit. A scientific approach is therefore needed to measure the success of this activity so I can identify for every X fold increase in links, there is an X fold increase in site traffic rank. PROPOSED TEST: o Recruit x amount of links o Monitor increase in inbound links via Google link:http://www.mydomain.co.uk o Identify which of the X have been indexed by Google o Monitor rankings o Identify a connection between the date the inbound links were recognized by Google and the increase in our rankings the same period. ISSUES Google PageRank and backlink counts do not display all info – but all info is being taken into account by Google Many backlinks are omitted from link:domain.co.uk in Google Google Backlinks and PR are only exported (published in green bar etc) every 3 months Given the issues, does anyone know of a 'scientific' approach in proving to your boss inbound links impact SERP's? Thanks |
|
|
|
all_things_natural Inbound Linking Experiment May 16 2006, 03:25 AM
OldWelshGuy Hi there ATN, welcome to HR :hi:
Go to Google, t... May 16 2006, 03:42 AM
all_things_natural thanks oldwelshguy,
I take on board everything yo... May 16 2006, 04:08 AM
OldWelshGuy I hear what your saying ATN, but step back and rea... May 16 2006, 04:31 AM
all_things_natural Thanks OWG!!
For my first forum questions... May 16 2006, 04:39 AM
Jill Welcome all_things_natural! :aloha:
Instead... May 16 2006, 07:10 AM
all_things_natural Hi Jill,
Thanks for the suggestions however we ha... May 16 2006, 07:19 AM
Jill
Maybe they don't? :) May 16 2006, 07:22 AM
OldWelshGuy The old addage is as true as ever.
If you link f... May 16 2006, 07:47 AM
Michael Martinez
Nope. Not always. You've bought into one o... May 16 2006, 08:01 AM
all_things_natural I am competing for a 'hyperoptimized search ex... May 16 2006, 09:17 AM
Michael Martinez "Link quality" is irrelevant to hyperopt... May 16 2006, 10:53 AM
greenlightsuk Instead of link:domain.com (which we know doesn... May 18 2006, 06:13 AM
Jill
Not really. May 18 2006, 08:57 AM
qwerty Well, sort of, but only partly. domain.com -site:d... May 18 2006, 10:16 AM
Michael Martinez Of course the link search at Yahoo! tells us n... May 18 2006, 10:23 AM
Big Bill
Also I'd say there's no real need to kno... May 19 2006, 07:51 PM
SeanBlock I would say that Google is finally getting its act... May 21 2006, 05:33 AM
firedog Hi-
linkdomain:www.mysite.com at Yahoo will give... May 25 2006, 06:33 AM
Michael Martinez
Not really.
As I have pointed out above, severa... May 25 2006, 09:55 AM
qwerty ...theoretically. Google have certainly been makin... May 25 2006, 10:08 AM
janell
However (and maybe I'm interpreting this wro... May 25 2006, 12:04 PM
Michael Martinez
There are two caches: the internal "crawl c... May 25 2006, 12:28 PM
janell Ah, thanks for clearing that up. May 25 2006, 12:49 PM![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 9th September 2010 - 02:08 AM |