What's the point in backlinking if it's not from the main page?

[amitcor]

Hi warriors,

Seems like lately 1 of the hottest trends is link building. a lot of people offer baclklinking from High PR sites.

the problem is the linking are not from the high PR pages.
For example a Domain main page can have a PR6, but the page that you put your backlink in has no PR at all, or very low PR.

so is it not sort of a lie/hype? (i'm not calling anybosy here al lier).
I'm just asking - If google see that the URL you put your backlink at is 0 or not available, so what does it matter if the main page got PR9? you are still getting a backlink that isn't worth so much.

Am i right or wrong here?
I hope I explained my self well




PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...
[IMG]chrome://seoquake/content/skin/close.gif[/IMG]

[AlexTampa]

You should focus more on trust rank than page rank. Therefore the inner pages are just as good

[Steven Carl Kelly]

All backlinks are helpful.

[amitcor]

i didn't say they are not helpful at all.

but packages such as Angela's (for example, only because she is very known here - again i'm not saying this to offend or to suggest her service isn't good) and all other packages promise us a backlink from a PR6 page.

lets say:
facebook.com home page is PR9 . so they advertise that we get a PR9 link.

but the backlink actually sits on:
Facebook.com/profiles/groups..../blabla... - and that page usually got no PR.

so i'm just trying to understand why do they say it's a PR9 when in reality it's a PR 0 .
PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...
[IMG]chrome://seoquake/content/skin/close.gif[/IMG]

[dburk]

Hi amitcor,

Websites do not have PageRank. The number one rule of SEO is that Search Engines rank web pages not websites. If someone represents a link as having the same PR as the website's homepage, when clearly it does not, they are either ignorant or deceitful.

Having said that, you are doing yourself a great disservice if you focus on PR. You would benefit greatly if you instead focused on relevant traffic. A backlink is worth much more if it is from a page that has targeted traffic that will find your link highly relevant to their desires.

That type of backlink brings real traffic that has real value to your website. It also enhances the authority of your page for that keyword. PR alone will not help your SERP rankings, focus first on relevance and authority, PR will come naturally.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by amitcor

but packages such as Angela's (for example, only because she is very known here - again i'm not saying this to offend or to suggest her service isn't good) and all other packages promise us a backlink from a PR6 page.

If they "promise" backlinks from a PR6 page when the profile is a PR0, then they should certainly make sure they are explicit about the reality. The site may be "thought of" as a PR6 site due to the PR of the front page, but the individual page where your backlink will be is the page of significance.

So yes, clarity should be employed so as not to mislead anyone.

[Marty S]

Originally Posted by amitcor

If google see that the URL you put your backlink at is 0 or not available, so what does it matter if the main page got PR9? you are still getting a backlink that isn't worth so much.

This crossed my mind too when creating some recent back-links using Angela's service. The account I created (in a high PR site) with my link on it will rather much always be a PR-ZERO, so I was hard pressed to spend a lot of time building the links.

I too, am not saying they don't work, but it does seem puzzling to me.

[4morereferrals]

What's the point in backlinking if it's not from the main page?

Because ... it works. WELL.

Give it a try - you'll like it.

If anyone on this forum could truly tell you why its working or why it wont work ... they would NOT be here answering this thread, their substantial paycheck would have google on it.

To the responders indicating that site quality and relevance is critical to link building success ... How did these rules get tested?

[amitcor]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Because ... it works. WELL.

Give it a try - you'll like it.

If anyone on this forum could truly tell you why its working or why it wont work ... they would NOT be here answering this thread, their substantial paycheck would have google on it.

To the responders indicating that site quality and relevance is critical to link building success ... How did these rules get tested?

again i'm not argueing rather or not those backlinking packages work. i read about a lot of people that it did work for them and i'm just now starting to get into backlinks my self and test the effect of them.
But i do think there is something snicky in saying you get a PR6, but in reality get PR non .
I'm 99% sure that if you would have gotten it from the main page that really has high PR , the effect of that would have been much much stonger.

Coz everybosy that market those packages say you get a PR6 backlink, and it's not really correct, especially for people that don't understand that there is a difference in the PR between the main page and an inner URL.
PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...
[IMG]chrome://seoquake/content/skin/close.gif[/IMG]

[4morereferrals]

I'm 99% sure that if you would have gotten it from the main page that really has high PR , the effect of that would have been much much stonger.

Please elaborate how your became 99% sure of this.

The Sheeple are convinced that they must get links ONLY from high PR pages that are "relevant" to their site, so marketers sell them the next best thing.

I think the packet sellers are very clear that they pages being linked UPON are not the ones with PR ...

Query: 2 inner pages to link on ... one page is on a domain with a homepage of PR8, the other is on domain with a homepage of PRN/A ... which inner page has the best likelihood of becoming a PR4 the fastest?

Originally Posted by amitcor

again i'm not argueing rather or not those backlinking packages work. i read about a lot of people that it did work for them and i'm just now starting to get into backlinks my self and test the effect of them.
But i do think there is something snicky in saying you get a PR6, but in reality get PR non .
I'm 99% sure that if you would have gotten it from the main page that really has high PR , the effect of that would have been much much stonger.

Coz everybosy that market those packages say you get a PR6 backlink, and it's not really correct, especially for people that don't understand that there is a difference in the PR between the main page and an inner URL.
PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...
[IMG]chrome://seoquake/content/skin/close.gif[/IMG]

[dburk]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Query: 2 inner pages to link on ... one page is on a domain with a homepage of PR8, the other is on domain with a homepage of PRN/A ... which inner page has the best likelihood of becoming a PR4 the fastest?

Answer: The page that gets the most direct and indirect backlinks. PR is simply the measure of link popularity, nothing more nothing less. It's a quantitative number, not a qualitative value.

A better question would be "which page has the most targeted traffic relevant to my website offering"? why? that's what puts money in your pocket.

[traceye]

Originally Posted by dburk

Answer: The page that gets the most direct and indirect backlinks. PR is simply the measure of link popularity, nothing more nothing less. It's a quantitative number, not a qualitative value.

A better question would be "which page has the most targeted traffic relevant to my website offering"? why? that's what puts money in your pocket.

That's true - the one with the most targeted traffic wins the race, BUT

you asked what the point in backlinking from these inner pages is and it's not to get traffic directly from these pages, but to increase the number of links to our site which will then (hopefully) increase our rankings in Google.

And getting our site higher in the SERPS will get us more targeted traffic.

t

[dburk]

Originally Posted by traceye

That's true - the one with the most targeted traffic wins the race, BUT

you asked what the point in backlinking from these inner pages is and it's not to get traffic directly from these pages, but to increase the number of links to our site which will then (hopefully) increase our rankings in Google.

And getting our site higher in the SERPS will get us more targeted traffic.

t

Yes, but seeking backlinks for the purpose of manipulating PR gets you manipulated PR, that and 4 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

SERP rankings aren't based on PR, they are based on relevance as the primary factor with authority and trust being the secondary factors. PR is so low on the factors effecting your rankings that it doesn't merit any special attention.

If your goal is to earn "a little green line in your toolbar" trophy then go that PR manipulation route and earn your little green line trophy. However, if you goal is to earn a little green in your wallet then I suggest that you make a beeline for that targeted traffic.

Trophies are for amateurs, cash is what professionals want to earn.

[traceye]

Originally Posted by dburk

Yes, but seeking backlinks for the purpose of manipulating PR gets you manipulated PR, that and 4 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

SERP rankings aren't based on PR, they are based on relevance as the primary factor with authority and trust being the secondary factors. PR is so low on the factors effecting your rankings that it doesn't merit any special attention.

If your goal is to earn "a little green line in your toolbar" trophy then go that PR manipulation route and earn your little green line trophy. However, if you goal is to earn a little green in your wallet then I suggest that you make a beeline for that targeted traffic.

Trophies are for amateurs, cash is what professionals want to earn.

I totally agree that rankings have nothing whatsoever to do with PR. I've seen many sites with low or no PR in top spots in Google.

But backlinks DO affect your rankings. Google favours sites that are more popular because it thinks that site has more relavancy. And the more different sites with trusted authority that are linking to you means that it's probable that your site is a trusted source for that term. It's basic off page SEO.

Again the purpose is not to gain PR, but backlinks and thus better rankings in Google - two completely different objectives and results.

I'm not saying that these sort of links should be your only source of backlinks and that they are the best you can get, you should be trying for other types of links as well, however the results I've seen show me that they do have an impact on rankings.

Believe me, the green in my bank account is what I'm after as well. I could care less what PR my sites are.

Tracey

[maestero2010]

It is quite right that backlinks from PR0 page are of not much preference but getting many PR0 link can also help you in getting good PR.

[hipnol]

don't bother about tool bar PR, a new page on CNN still stands on first beating all competition. Just keep up good work...

[SaSeoPete]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Because ... it works. WELL.

Give it a try - you'll like it.

If anyone on this forum could truly tell you why its working or why it wont work ... they would NOT be here answering this thread, their substantial paycheck would have google on it.

To the responders indicating that site quality and relevance is critical to link building success ... How did these rules get tested?

I hear what you are saying, but I just get the feeling that you are saying this because you are selling guides to these types of backlinks in your signature.

[Terry Kyle]

From my own constant real-world experiments, ignore this main page PR/inner page PR debate and just get out there and backlink furiously.

Why?

Because it works.

Out of every site ranking methodology I've ever employed, backlinking is the ONLY one that delivers long-term Google SERP success.

Once I got over the 'just create quality content and the links will grow' myth and started backlinking ferociously, all of the sites in my portfolio hit page 1, some at #1.

In a way, backlinking is almost the ONLY way that Google can determine whether a site deserves SERP prominence or not if you think about it.

How else could they do it?

However, the irony of that situation is that websurfers (like you and I) don't normally create a link to a site just because we find 'great content' there.

Who does that?

Hardly anyone.

I love a site called whatatop dot com which has amazing photos sent in from all over the world and I visit it often but would never think to put a link on my site to them - it just isn't natural websurfing behaviour.

Your only interest IMHO is whether the method works or not. For me, it works brilliantly and Angela, PJs and So Cal's materials are first-class.

[4morereferrals]

If I sell cars ... say Toyota Prius Hybrids ... and I have Green, Red, White and Yellow available ... I like the white because its easy to maintain, its the damn same car, and stays cooler in the summer months, and attracts less attention from the police while I drive .... BUT ...

The RED Cars we cant keep in stock because people THINK that its faster ... ohhh and there is a factory shortage and RED is hard to get. What do I advertise I have? You got it RED Toyota Prius' - cuz thats what the SHEEPLE want. Their preception is their reality.

Now, do I know the white version is just as effective - maybe even better and EASIER to own ... do I try and re-educate the sheeple or just give them what they believe they want and need, and wait for them to come round to logic an reason?

Backlinks from inner pages of sites with a hompage that has high PR is proving to get results. However; that doesnt mean Im convinced that the sites homepage PR is the reason its working. Hope Im clearly getting the point across ... I can be a little convoluted at times ... sorry in advance if not.

I have been testing many of the "perceptions" being bandied about on these forums as SEO gospel, and several of them - FOR ME - have been proven to be old wives tales.

1. How many links you can build per day or per month wor whatever
2. The whole homepage / site PR thing
3. Relevant sites only [ like google can sense the relation of your content on anothers site and draw a correlation as to the relevance ]

IMHO ... the PR of the site people are buying to put links on is less important than it is the sites POPULARITY with Yahoo SLERp or Google Bot and how often it gets spidered. Its not coincidental that High PR sites get spidered more frequently and hence the backlinks people leave there get noticed FASTER and have an impact on their SERPS faster ... than say some desolate abandoned blog let go by its owner 4 years ago. So hence folks get gaga for high pr homepage sites to put their links on.

Maybe nobody round these parts feels comfortable releasing their secret test methods of how they determined for them that its the sites HIGH PR for backlinking which are the secret to SERP and that those high pr page backlinks placements passed PR thru and gave juice or power or whatever to their sites ranking in the organic placements.

Originally Posted by SaSeoPete

I hear what you are saying, but I just get the feeling that you are saying this because you are selling guides to these types of backlinks in your signature.

[4morereferrals]

Hey Terry ...

Am I the So Cal you reference?

I suspect so as I see your postings out there on the ether - I think using BGM3 ...

If so - thanks for the kind words .. I could NOT agree with you more. Skip the PR debate and just link man ... link ...

Like you - its working well for me at the moment - for SERP

Im not linking to get happenstance traffic from sites where a surfer gets intrigued by my anchor text and clicks. I want the links there so googlebot will spider them index them and give me credit for them and push me to the top of the results for the targeted keyword searches I desire.

Best of luck to you!

Steve aka So Cal :-)

Originally Posted by Terry Kyle

From my own constant real-world experiments, ignore this main page PR/inner page PR debate and just get out there and backlink furiously.

Why?

Because it works.

Out of every site ranking methodology I've ever employed, backlinking is the ONLY one that delivers long-term Google SERP success.

Once I got over the 'just create quality content and the links will grow' myth and started backlinking ferociously, all of the sites in my portfolio hit page 1, some at #1.

In a way, backlinking is almost the ONLY way that Google can determine whether a site deserves SERP prominence or not if you think about it.

How else could they do it?

However, the irony of that situation is that websurfers (like you and I) don't normally create a link to a site just because we find 'great content' there.

Who does that?

Hardly anyone.

I love a site called whatatop dot com which has amazing photos sent in from all over the world and I visit it often but would never think to put a link on my site to them - it just isn't natural websurfing behaviour.

Your only interest IMHO is whether the method works or not. For me, it works brilliantly and Angela, PJs and So Cal's materials are first-class.

[SaSeoPete]

I hear what you are saying, and I agree with you on some of your points, especially about the amount of links built.

One question, what would you honestly prefer:

30 non pagerank (at the time) inner links coming from webpages on high pagerank websites not particularly related to your niche

OR

30 PR3+ links from webpages that are relevant to your website?

With your analogy of the car, its not the colour that is different, it's the model and the engine.

I am sure that your backlinks do work, I am not arguing that. I am just saying that your attitude to us "sheeple" is who think or put weight on high PR and relevant backlinks is all wrong.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

If I sell cars ... say Toyota Prius Hybrids ... and I have Green, Red, White and Yellow available ... I like the white because its easy to maintain, its the damn same car, and stays cooler in the summer months, and attracts less attention from the police while I drive .... BUT ...

The RED Cars we cant keep in stock because people THINK that its faster ... ohhh and there is a factory shortage and RED is hard to get. What do I advertise I have? You got it RED Toyota Prius' - cuz thats what the SHEEPLE want. Their preception is their reality.

Now, do I know the white version is just as effective - maybe even better and EASIER to own ... do I try and re-educate the sheeple or just give them what they believe they want and need, and wait for them to come round to logic an reason?

Backlinks from inner pages of sites with a hompage that has high PR is proving to get results. However; that doesnt mean Im convinced that the sites homepage PR is the reason its working. Hope Im clearly getting the point across ... I can be a little convoluted at times ... sorry in advance if not.

I have been testing many of the "perceptions" being bandied about on these forums as SEO gospel, and several of them - FOR ME - have been proven to be old wives tales.

1. How many links you can build per day or per month wor whatever
2. The whole homepage / site PR thing
3. Relevant sites only [ like google can sense the relation of your content on anothers site and draw a correlation as to the relevance ]

IMHO ... the PR of the site people are buying to put links on is less important than it is the sites POPULARITY with Yahoo SLERp or Google Bot and how often it gets spidered. Its not coincidental that High PR sites get spidered more frequently and hence the backlinks people leave there get noticed FASTER and have an impact on their SERPS faster ... than say some desolate abandoned blog let go by its owner 4 years ago. So hence folks get gaga for high pr homepage sites to put their links on.

Maybe nobody round these parts feels comfortable releasing their secret test methods of how they determined for them that its the sites HIGH PR for backlinking which are the secret to SERP and that those high pr page backlinks placements passed PR thru and gave juice or power or whatever to their sites ranking in the organic placements.

[Terry Kyle]

Yep Steve that's you and I do use BGM 3.0!

IMHO, learning what NOT to waste time on in IM is just as/more important than learning exactly what TO do.

Therefore, I don't believe in worrying about:

[a] the inner page/home page PR debate;

[b] links from relevant sites (I haven't seen it make the slightest bit of difference in real-world testing); and,

[c] obsessing over perfect content on my sites (supposedly to attract spontaneous links from visitors to my site as per the myth).

In this sense, mastery of time efficiency is critical and knowing what to EXCLUDE from your daily tasks is vital and being a backlinking monster (especially through outsourcing) every day IS essential!

[Terry Kyle]

The problem is Pete that you will almost never get links on PR8 home pages unless you rent links there and they ain't cheap.

I've seen one service charge hundreds of dollars a month for a PR8 home page link.

[SaSeoPete]

Originally Posted by Terry Kyle

The problem is Pete that you will almost never get links on PR8 home pages unless you rent links there and they ain't cheap.

I've seen one service charge hundreds of dollars a month for a PR8 home page link.

You are dead right. It is almost an impossible task. My point is I would take links with a pagerank which are relevant over irrelevant, non pagerank links any day.

I am not doubting that using the services mentioned before work. I have not tried them so I can't argue otherwise, but this is not "sheeple" talk, this is common SEO knowledge/sense.

[4morereferrals]

Pete - to be clear ...

There are tons of people in the herd of sheep following the high pr site game - because they believe the PR is doing the serp magic. Just because. Im sorry for using that term - probably pretty uncool - wasnt meaning for it to be all personal and totally derogatory.

If you have personally tested and found results contrary and have the proof - thats not a sheeple.

I am sure that your backlinks do work, I am not arguing that. I am just saying that your attitude to us "sheeple" is who think or put weight on high PR and relevant backlinks is all wrong.

Which ones take me the least amount of time to place and which are more likely to get thru the moderation stage, and which are likely to stay ON THE SITE and be spidered frequently?... and not deleted.

I think everyone WANTS to believe that backlinks from a more pretigious authoritative site will give them more "power" in the serps. Im just not seeing that pan out. Requires further testing - if you have tested it out and thats your results congrats ... Id love to know more how it was proved up is all ...

In regard to the analogy now changing to the engine and model - then let me toss out this query ...

If it takes you 1 hrs to backlink 30 sites ... on your relevant high pr domains after you jump thru moderation and registration confirmation and commenting hoops ... and I can in the same time frame place links at 100 sites x 3 links per site to my main page AND inner pages articles and blogs ... AND bookmark and tag all those in roughly the same time period ... which would you prefer?

30 non pagerank (at the time) inner links coming from webpages on high pagerank websites not particularly related to your niche

OR

30 PR3+ links from webpages that are relevant to your website?

[SaSeoPete]

I do agree with your point about getting many links as quickly as possible, but

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Which ones take me the least amount of time to place and which are more likely to get thru the moderation stage, and which are likely to stay ON THE SITE and be spidered frequently?... and not deleted.

I am not talking about just commenting on blogs to get back links, nor joining websites to get a link in my profile. When I am looking for those blog comment etc. high pagerank links I personally use various queries in Google and SeoQuake, works wonders. I am not one to sit around and wait for other people to moderate my comments.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

I think everyone WANTS to believe that backlinks from a more pretigious authoritative site will give them more "power" in the serps. Im just not seeing that pan out. Requires further testing - if you have tested it out and thats your results congrats ... Id love to know more how it was proved up is all ...

I have not proved anything here so I can't honestly comment. I don't work for Google and I cant say that I know how their algorithm works. All I know is that with the way I build link I am able to get very successful rankings for competitive keywords in the SERPS

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

In regard to the analogy now changing to the engine and model - then let me toss out this query ...

If it takes you 1 hrs to backlink 30 sites ... on your relevant high pr domains after you jump thru moderation and registration confirmation and commenting hoops ... and I can in the same time frame place links at 100 sites x 3 links per site to my main page AND inner pages articles and blogs ... AND bookmark and tag all those in roughly the same time period ... which would you prefer?

What makes you think that it takes me more time to get my backlinks than it does you to get yours? Does it really only take one hour for you to build 100 links from the service you offer? I never said anything about it taking me an hour to build 30 links.... where did you get that number from?

Lastly you never answered my question so I will ask it again,

What would you honestly prefer:

30 non pagerank (at the time) inner links coming from webpages on high pagerank websites not particularly related to your niche

OR

30 PR3+ links from webpages that are relevant to your website?

[4morereferrals]

Originally Posted by SaSeoPete

I do agree with your point about getting many links as quickly as possible, but



I am not talking about just commenting on blogs to get back links, nor joining websites to get a link in my profile. When I am looking for those blog comment etc. high pagerank links I personally use various queries in Google and SeoQuake, works wonders. I am not one to sit around and wait for other people to moderate my comments.



I have not proved anything here so I can't honestly comment. I don't work for Google and I cant say that I know how their algorithm works. All I know is that with the way I build link I am able to get very successful rankings for competitive keywords in the SERPS



What makes you think that it takes me more time to get my backlinks than it does you to get yours? Does it really only take one hour for you to build 100 links from the service you offer? I never said anything about it taking me an hour to build 30 links.... where did you get that number from?

Lastly you never answered my question so I will ask it again,

What would you honestly prefer:

30 non pagerank (at the time) inner links coming from webpages on high pagerank websites not particularly related to your niche

OR

30 PR3+ links from webpages that are relevant to your website?

To answer your question directly - with all other essential elements being equal - what the hell go for the PR. I have no other reason why other than to assume it may be better??? No one has proved it ... it just seems better. But as I eluded in my reply ... For me ... Id want to know more - those factors that appear important to you as criteria are not all that important to me. Site relevance ... and PR. Franky I could care less. I gave you the items Id base my decision on.

In the absence of proof to the contrary - Angelas method seems to prove the relavancy factor, so many cite as beneficial as NULL. Not sure what to make of that factor or how it could be proved important?

So then for me ... its more important how likely the link is to be moderator deleted or never found after the initial bot crawl. And then how challenging it is from a time standpoint to do it. Meaning if I place the link and do a comment the moderator deems as not "relavant" or non spammy enough for his site and he/she nukes it - biy did I just waste a bunch o time. Also ... taking the time to think up interesting diatribe on a range of unrelated sites - is just a chore. I have a lot to say to be sure - just not sure the site mod wants to read it or let his readers

You asked what makes me think it takes you more time to physically place a link than my methods... because Ive done Angelas & Pauls and Blog commenting personally. I based it solely on "my personal" experiences with their packets. I didnt mean to imply implicitly YOU ... but for the most part - the average warrior doing their own backling via packets etc ... Im quite confident I can outpace them ... significantly... unless they too are using automation.

3 links per site - profile avatar image, and a brief profile about me - for the most part in about a minute per site.

I am not one to sit around and wait for other people to moderate my comments.

How do you figure your getting past moderation if its not your site? I get it that the comment gets posted ... but it also can be moderated too ... no?

[SaSeoPete]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

3 links per site - profile avatar image, and a brief profile about me - for the most part in about a minute per site.

Thats pretty damn awesome. Kudos. I would love to be able to automate that type of link building. Maybe you can shoot me a PM and tell me how you do that

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

How do you figure your getting past moderation if its not your site? I get it that the comment gets posted ... but it also can be moderated too ... no?

It's got nothing to do with commenting on ANY site.

[amitcor]

if nobody has proved high PR is better, why are you are all the back-linking packages describes how wonderfull their high PR site.
why angela and you and others are advertising packages of PR5+ and not PR0 if the PR has so little weight?

PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait...wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...
[IMG]chrome://seoquake/content/skin/close.gif[/IMG]

[SaSeoPete]

Originally Posted by amitcor

if nobody has proved high PR is better, why are you are all the back-linking packages describes how wonderfull their high PR site.
why angela and you and others are advertising packages of PR5+ and not PR0 if the PR has so little weight?

I would like to know the answer to that too.

[Black Hat Cat]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

To answer your question directly - with all other essential elements being equal - what the hell go for the PR. I have no other reason why other than to assume it may be better??? No one has proved it ... it just seems better.

Google pretty much confirmed they were better when they said we don't want people manipulating search engine results by selling page rank.

[4morereferrals]

Originally Posted by SaSeoPete

I would like to know the answer to that too.

I "feel" Angela and Paul truly believe their personal results and success are tied to linking on sites where the homepage is PR4+ - and they - like many others are sure that its makes a great deal of difference. Thats my impression. Im not saying they are wrong, Im saying Im not so sure, and that Im having preliminary results that indicate otherwise.

Tried to explain this before ...

If you have 10,000 sites you know you can link on ... and the market desires - regardless of discussions to the contrary - the sites that have a HIGH PR Homepage ... should you continue to try and convince them they are wasting their time chasing PR sites with over zealous moderators or do you just give them what it is they seek and go about your business?

I have 100 cars - 25 white / 25 yellow / 25 blue / 25 red ... the market is seeking RED ... do I advertise I have the least desireable yellow cars or do I advertise that I have 25 Red cars ready to go?

Are they being harmed ? Do I have concrete irrefutable evidence yet that zero PR pages and sites work just as well? Not Yet - still in process. Does anyone have irrefutable evidence that PR and relevant sites are the only answer to good SERPs? I have yet to see it - perhaps it exists.

On the topic of relevance ... SASEOPete ... how do we explain Danial Malano's successful strategy. See the last few posts in that thread. His outsource people buy my products and I see backlinks in his yahoo site explorer that are familiar [ a lot of them ]

See here:

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...tml#post962810

Thats a pretty serious keyword he's conquered.

To the original poster ... not sure Im seeing the same problem as you are. I think the folks are getting exactly what is being advertised. Inner pages on quality sites where the PR is > X. Now its up to the consumer to determine if whats being sold is of merit. Seems like they are voting with their wallets and their time in strong numbers.

Not sure what else to say ?

[4morereferrals]

Very interesting. Good point too. Help me understand further. So Im clear - what does "selling page rank" mean in this context?

Originally Posted by Black Hat Cat

Google pretty much confirmed they were better when they said we don't want people manipulating search engine results by selling page rank.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by traceye

I totally agree that rankings have nothing whatsoever to do with PR. I've seen many sites with low or no PR in top spots in Google.

But backlinks DO affect your rankings. Google favours sites that are more popular because it thinks that site has more relavancy. And the more different sites with trusted authority that are linking to you means that it's probable that your site is a trusted source for that term. It's basic off page SEO.

Again the purpose is not to gain PR, but backlinks and thus better rankings in Google - two completely different objectives and results.

I'm not saying that these sort of links should be your only source of backlinks and that they are the best you can get, you should be trying for other types of links as well, however the results I've seen show me that they do have an impact on rankings.

Believe me, the green in my bank account is what I'm after as well. I could care less what PR my sites are.

Tracey

Hi Tracey,

I agree with almost every thing you say. Where I seem to disagree is where you say "Google favours sites that are more popular because it thinks that site has more relavancy. And the more different sites with trusted authority that are linking to you means that it's probable that your site is a trusted source for that term."

Popularity doesn't equal relevancy, if it did then all popular sites would rank highly for all keywords. Clearly this is not true, furthermore many pages rank higher for certain keywords than their much more popular competitors.

Backlinks are very helpful for ranking higher in the SERP, but not for the reasons so many people seem to think. You can have all the backlinks you want, all from the highest authority sites with the highest PR, but if the page and your anchor text are not relevant it won't help you one iota in ranking for your target keyword.

As always it comes back to the issue of relevance. Backlinks help your pages rank higher by influencing the relevance to you target keyword. There are other factors that influence how much a backlink will influence the relevancy of your page, this is where trust and authority comes in.

If you have a link from a page that is a high authority for radio capacitors, but your page is about auto insurance, do you really think that the "radio capacitor" authority transmutes into authority for "auto insurance"? If this were true you would see SERP ranked by PR, which clearly they are not.

Now, when you find many authority sites related to radio capacitors linking to a page about radio capacitors, you will discover that page typically ranking high for that keyword. Again relevance is proven paramount.

It's no wonder that relevance is the primary factor in all SEO, the goal of search engines is to generate the most relevant results because that is what their users demand.

[Jon Steel]

Originally Posted by amitcor

again i'm not argueing rather or not those backlinking packages work. i read about a lot of people that it did work for them and i'm just now starting to get into backlinks my self and test the effect of them.
But i do think there is something snicky in saying you get a PR6, but in reality get PR non .
I'm 99% sure that if you would have gotten it from the main page that really has high PR , the effect of that would have been much much stonger.

Coz everybosy that market those packages say you get a PR6 backlink, and it's not really correct, especially for people that don't understand that there is a difference in the PR between the main page and an inner URL.

Then what's the question...

js

[4morereferrals]

If you have a link from a page that is a high authority for radio capacitors, but your page is about auto insurance, do you really think that the "radio capacitor" authority transmutes into authority for "auto insurance"? If this were true you would see SERP ranked by PR, which clearly they are not.

I read a lot about how google's algo KNOW's relevance and can transmute and "feel" things like ... relevance, un-natural linking patterns, too many links one week and too few the next and so on and so forth.

I cant cross the same chasm as you illustrate that authority for capicitors doesnt transmute for auto insurance. Can I substitute business insurance in there instead of auto insurance?

So If the Radio Capacitors Mfg'ing Assoc. has a website and they want a guest blogger to write articles on how to engage in best practices to risk manage their shop facilities, or transfer their products liability risks and I blog on those topics on their guest blog and put a author bio box link back to my "business Insurance" site ... your saying theres no relevance? Certainly there can be plenty of relevance between two seemingly un-relavant sites having links ...

What evidence do we have that proves what a relevant link is, and how we know it would or would not be relevant? Is your logic the same as mine or the same as the Algo from google or yahoo in the context of one sites relevance to another? How in hell would they achieve relevancy programatically or algorithmically ?

To me ... Danial Malano's Page 1 #3 ranking flys in the face of the relavancy theory.

Keyword - Business Consulting
Backlinks - 95% Non Relevant sites - but a ton of them.

The site is about - making Money Online and he will consult with you to create your online business. [ as I understand it ]

For us offline brick n mortar old schoolers - MMO is a far stretch from relevant to "business consulting". I see the fit , but its not what I think of when I think Business Consutling. So ... how did the google algo know? or Not?

Im not trying to say anybody is wrong ... im trying to flush out some of these SEO rules ... Im not following the logic - in light of some contrary facts.

I dont mean anything personal ... not trying to pick a fight - trying to learn more. I dont mean to come across as attacking you - your methods - or SEO beliefs... so sorry in advance if it came across that way. Kinda lazy now and dont want to go thru and re read and re type.

[traceye]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Tracey,

I agree with almost every thing you say. Where I seem to disagree is where you say "Google favours sites that are more popular because it thinks that site has more relavancy. And the more different sites with trusted authority that are linking to you means that it's probable that your site is a trusted source for that term."

Popularity doesn't equal relevancy, if it did then all popular sites would rank highly for all keywords. Clearly this is not true, furthermore many pages rank higher for certain keywords than their much more popular competitors.

Yes, I agree and that is what I meant, not popularity in general, but popularity in terms of the amount of anchor text backlinks pointing to a page that is relevant to the anchor term being used (but even then the page only seems to have to be somewhat related - I've seen pages get ranked highly and don't even have the keyword on that page at all - but because the backlink text to the site contained the term Google thinks it's relevant).

And while PR doesn't make a lick of difference to how high YOUR site will rank in the SERPS, it does make a difference in the trust/authority of the pages linking to you. A high PR link TO your site (anchored of course) will give it a higher ranking than lots of low PR links.

It all made sense in my head before I wrote it. LOL

t

[dburk]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

So If the Radio Capacitors Mfg'ing Assoc. has a website and they want a guest blogger to write articles on how to engage in best practices to risk manage their shop facilities, or transfer their products liability risks and I blog on those topics on their guest blog and put a author bio box link back to my "business Insurance" site ... your saying theres no relevance? Certainly there can be plenty of relevance between two seemingly un-relavant sites having links ...

Hi 4morereferrals,

The number rule of SEO is that Search Engines rank pages not sites. If the page is about "business insurance" then it is relevant to a backlink from a page that has content about business insurance. That is why a link from a irrelevant page has no benefit unless you add your keyword to that page (typically in the anchor text). So in your example the guest blogger writes about "business insurance" making the page relevant to his outbound link.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

What evidence do we have that proves what a relevant link is, and how we know it would or would not be relevant? Is your logic the same as mine or the same as the Algo from google or yahoo in the context of one sites relevance to another? How in hell would they achieve relevancy programatically or algorithmically ?

The primary function of their algorithm is to determine relevance, it is what Google in particular is very good at. To see an example of how it works visit Google's AdWords Keyword Tool. You can plug in any site and immediately see which keywords their algorithm finds relevant sorted in the order of relevance. While they do not show you the actual relevancy score for each keyword, there must be one for the tool to sort by relevance.

Since we know they calculate a relevancy score for each page, it seems natural that they would use this same score to sort SERP listings. If you are clever and creative you can use this tool to test many hypotheses.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

To me ... Danial Malano's Page 1 #3 ranking flys in the face of the relavancy theory.

Keyword - Business Consulting
Backlinks - 95% Non Relevant sites - but a ton of them.

The site is about - making Money Online and he will consult with you to create your online business. [ as I understand it ]

Actually, this is an excellent example of how relevancy influenced a top ranking. If you analyze his on page optimization you will see that he has optimized for the keyword "Business Consulting". This is no accident because when you analyze his backlinks you will find that many of the pages that he has received backlinks from contain the exact phrase "business consulting" making each of those pages relevant to his targeted keyword.

With so many relevant pages linking to his page, that is optimized for that keyword, it made his relevancy score high enough to garner a 1st page ranking. If those linking pages did not contain the phrase "business consulting" I doubt he would be in the top 100.

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

For us offline brick n mortar old schoolers - MMO is a far stretch from relevant to "business consulting". I see the fit , but its not what I think of when I think Business Consutling. So ... how did the google algo know? or Not?

Again, that is the primary purpose of their algorithm, to find and index sites that are relevant to what their users are looking for, It's all about giving the users what they want. Their algorithm found that both his page and many of the pages that link to his page contain the phrase "business consulting" causing his page to earn a very high relevancy score for that keyword.

You should note that a competitor could easily displace his listing by gaining a handful links that have high relevancy along with high trust and authority. Those type of links can be difficult to come by.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by traceye

And while PR doesn't make a lick of difference to how high YOUR site will rank in the SERPS, it does make a difference in the trust/authority of the pages linking to you. A high PR link TO your site (anchored of course) will give it a higher ranking than lots of low PR links.

Hi t,

Again, I have to disagree slightly. I believe pages with high trust/authority often have a higher PR, due to all the naturally earned backlinks that those type of pages tend to earn. It's not the PR that creates authority/trust, but the other way around.

When folks focus all their efforts on manipulating the PR of their web page they tend to end up with plenty of PR, but poor rankings and little relevant traffic. Clearly those pages do not yield much trust or authority (or profits).

[vinman]

Links from pages that have contents similar to your website theme will give value.

[4morereferrals]

Ive been crystal clear on the Page PR v. non-existent Site PR. Sorry if I posted anything to the contrary - didnt mean to.

Ahhhh ... so the only thing that needs be of relevance is the anchor text in the hyper link [of the backlink] ?

Perhaps Ive been over analyzing the whole links from "relevant sites" comments I keep seeing. What you described is a relavant link ... most others are illustrating the relavancy issue as the relevancy between my site/page and the site/page where the link is coming from. In fact ... Im pretty sure thats what your saying here ...

If you have a link from a page that is a high authority for radio capacitors, but your page is about auto insurance, do you really think that the "radio capacitor" authority transmutes into authority for "auto insurance"? If this were true you would see SERP ranked by PR, which clearly they are not.

Now, when you find many authority sites related to radio capacitors linking to a page about radio capacitors, you will discover that page typically ranking high for that keyword. Again relevance is proven paramount.

So I could be leaving a comment on a blog about star trek and type in utter gibberish except for the anchor text thats clickable in my backlink - say for "business consulting" that point back to my business consulting, On Page Optimized sales page .. and now .. viola ... because I injected the words business consulting onto this blog page and in my link - now both the site and the page and my new backlink have all become "relavant" ?

Seems simple enough ... I can do that

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi 4morereferrals,

The number rule of SEO is that Search Engines rank pages not sites. If the page is about "business insurance" then it is relevant to a backlink from a page that has content about business insurance. That is why a link from a irrelevant page has no benefit unless you add your keyword to that page (typically in the anchor text). So in your example the guest blogger writes about "business insurance" making the page relevant to his outbound link.

The primary function of their algorithm is to determine relevance, it is what Google in particular is very good at. To see an example of how it works visit Google's AdWords Keyword Tool. You can plug in any site and immediately see which keywords their algorithm finds relevant sorted in the order of relevance. While they do not show you the actual relevancy score for each keyword, there must be one for the tool to sort by relevance.

Since we know they calculate a relevancy score for each page, it seems natural that they would use this same score to sort SERP listings. If you are clever and creative you can use this tool to test many hypotheses.


Actually, this is an excellent example of how relevancy influenced a top ranking. If you analyze his on page optimization you will see that he has optimized for the keyword "Business Consulting". This is no accident because when you analyze his backlinks you will find that many of the pages that he has received backlinks from contain the exact phrase "business consulting" making each of those pages relevant to his targeted keyword.

With so many relevant pages linking to his page, that is optimized for that keyword, it made his relevancy score high enough to garner a 1st page ranking. If those linking pages did not contain the phrase "business consulting" I doubt he would be in the top 100.



Again, that is the primary purpose of their algorithm, to find and index sites that are relevant to what their users are looking for, It's all about giving the users what they want. Their algorithm found that both his page and many of the pages that link to his page contain the phrase "business consulting" causing his page to earn a very high relevancy score for that keyword.

You should note that a competitor could easily displace his listing by gaining a handful links that have high relevancy along with high trust and authority. Those type of links can be difficult to come by.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by 4morereferrals

Ive been crystal clear on the Page PR v. non-existent Site PR. Sorry if I posted anything to the contrary - didnt mean to.

Ahhhh ... so the only thing that needs be of relevance is the anchor text in the hyper link [of the backlink] ?

Perhaps Ive been over analyzing the whole links from "relevant sites" comments I keep seeing. What you described is a relavant link ... most others are illustrating the relavancy issue as the relevancy between my site/page and the site/page where the link is coming from. In fact ... Im pretty sure thats what your saying here ...



So I could be leaving a comment on a blog about star trek and type in utter gibberish except for the anchor text thats clickable in my backlink - say for "business consulting" that point back to my business consulting, On Page Optimized sales page .. and now .. viola ... because I injected the words business consulting onto this blog page and in my link - now both the site and the page and my new backlink have all become "relavant" ?

Seems simple enough ... I can do that

Hi 4morereferrals,

You got it!

Please bear in mind that relevance is not an absolute value. By adding the keyword to the linking page, in the form of your anchor text, you have added a small amount of relevance to that page. If the page has a higher relevance score for your targeted keyword then your backlink carries more influence on your own relevancy score. The more relevancy the page has, the more you benefit.

By going after every backlink from every page you find relevant or not, your are using a brute-force approach. It works, but requires maximum effort for minimum results. If you streamline your efforts towards relevant pages, you get maximum results from minimum effort. It's simply a productivity issue, one way gets you there quicker and with less effort.

[zoobie]

It is a misunderstanding most people have. But a domain with a higher PR generally means their sites in Google eyes worth something than a new domain and Google tends to believe a site that is older than a site that is just young and doesn't have the value of PR on it.

Do I answer your question?

[shooting_star]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi amitcor,

Websites do not have PageRank. The number one rule of SEO is that Search Engines rank web pages not websites. If someone represents a link as having the same PR as the website's homepage, when clearly it does not, they are either ignorant or deceitful.

Having said that, you are doing yourself a great disservice if you focus on PR. You would benefit greatly if you instead focused on relevant traffic. A backlink is worth much more if it is from a page that has targeted traffic that will find your link highly relevant to their desires.

That type of backlink brings real traffic that has real value to your website. It also enhances the authority of your page for that keyword. PR alone will not help your SERP rankings, focus first on relevance and authority, PR will come naturally.

I totally agree with this also it is my understanding that the databases like alexa are updated twice a year which means that a site might have a high page rank at a certain time but in actually when Alexa catches up and updates the rank will drop to its real ranking. This happened to one of my sites where my Alexa rank was real good until the update where it was put where it should be which was a terrible ranking.

[Mary Green]

Originally Posted by shooting_star

I totally agree with this also it is my understanding that the databases like alexa are updated twice a year which means that a site might have a high page rank at a certain time but in actually when Alexa catches up and updates the rank will drop to its real ranking. This happened to one of my sites where my Alexa rank was real good until the update where it was put where it should be which was a terrible ranking.

That sucks, were you able to bring it back up?

[shooting_star]

yes i wasn't being spanked for anything it was just a site that was new with practically no traffic. I knew it was coming.

[mwoeppel1]

So the big issue here with backlinking from non-relevant sites is your anchor text. if you can find sites that have your keyword on there in addition to the anchor text, great!