PR 0 site Ahead of Authority sites

[Lukas]

How could it happen?

A site that is PR0, created Aug 2008 is ahead of a strong authority health .gov site, webmd, mayoclinic, medicinenet,

positives in its favor:
it has kw in domain name.
has over 10,000 links (many, many blogroll links on an article directory; seems to be sitewide, many blog comment links; must be an auto-submitter program)
.edu links - None according to SEO for firefox
yes, it is an adsense/affiliate site w/ link units on home page. yes, plural link units!
about 4,000 uniques per month


I am sure you've seen it elsewhere on other topics so this throws a lot of the authority Matt Cutts stuff in the water. I can only access the 1st 1,000 backlinks so if you know of a place or resource that gives all the backlink data, it would be helpful. I tried Yahoo and backlinkwatch

So does this simply mean that no backlink or kw is out of reach if you can invest 6 months of time?

I have always tried to mix it up but the 1st 1000 links I see are "simplesmente basura"

so BLOGS are BACK baby !!
and maybe if can get deeper into it I may find they used Angela's methods. (I hope so)

but still why is it only PR0? is it the quality of backlinks..anyway the hell with PR, some of my sites lost PR but still maintain rankings so let that theory fall to the center of the earth like the constant AOL cds in your mailbox.

[kkchoon]

You can try Majestic SEO for link competition analysis.

If 10K links don't bring its' domain to PR 3 and above, all links must be from low PR sites? Recently Google just updated the page rank and even Yahoo dropped to PR5!

That doesn't mean Yahoo don't have the same links before update, may be just Google changes their algorithm.

Like you said, some of your site lost PR but maintain the ranking

Anyone with more ideas?

[jasonmorgan]

So does this simply mean that no backlink or kw is out of reach if you can invest 6 months of time?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Every website plays by the same rules.

The PR 0 is odd, I'd expect at least a 1... are you sure it's 0, check a few different tools to verify the PR.

[Tom Goodwin]

Shocked that it still has a PR of 0. As KK mentioned, I wonder about the quality of the links.

As for beating sites like webmd, mayoclinic, gov sites, etc., it really comes down to keywords as well.

If its a webmd article on "teeth whitening", but the keyword is "at home teeth whitening kit", you certainly can knock off the webmd article if you get the keyword in the domain and the appropriate backlinks.

As for analyzing the backlinks, the best way by far is SEO Spyglass. I bought it a few weeks ago (which runs $100 I think), and it compiles backlink data for many many sources, trims out dupes, and then pulls in any data you want.

If you want, PM me and I can run it for you. I'm pretty sure that Terry Kyle and Traffic Mystic/Steve can vouch for my integrity around here if you don't trust me (or just read my posts, 80% of which are about backlinks). I could send you a .txt or .csv file of the outputted data. I would be interested how a site with all of those backlinks could be a PR0.

Originally Posted by Lukas

How could it happen?

A site that is PR0, created Aug 2008 is ahead of a strong authority health .gov site, webmd, mayoclinic, medicinenet,

positives in its favor:
it has kw in domain name.
has over 10,000 links (many, many blogroll links on an article directory; seems to be sitewide, many blog comment links; must be an auto-submitter program)
.edu links - None according to SEO for firefox
yes, it is an adsense/affiliate site w/ link units on home page. yes, plural link units!
about 4,000 uniques per month


I am sure you've seen it elsewhere on other topics so this throws a lot of the authority Matt Cutts stuff in the water. I can only access the 1st 1,000 backlinks so if you know of a place or resource that gives all the backlink data, it would be helpful. I tried Yahoo and backlinkwatch

So does this simply mean that no backlink or kw is out of reach if you can invest 6 months of time?

I have always tried to mix it up but the 1st 1000 links I see are "simplesmente basura"

so BLOGS are BACK baby !!
and maybe if can get deeper into it I may find they used Angela's methods. (I hope so)

but still why is it only PR0? is it the quality of backlinks..anyway the hell with PR, some of my sites lost PR but still maintain rankings so let that theory fall to the center of the earth like the constant AOL cds in your mailbox.

[itcoll]

There is absolutely nothing in the Page rank.clearly the web site has been selling links for some time and its PR has been reduced to PR 0.there is no surprise that it is beating the authority sites.Power lies in the number of backlinks and the anchor text,not in PR.

[Lukas]

itcoll,

very true but we know webmd, nih.gov, and medicinenet are the authority sites on health with backlinks from top level universities, .gov sites, auth dir's, and they probably have more backlinks to their homepage than the interior niche page.

found out that those auth site pages had only 21, 389, 270 backlinks respectively so 11,000 bl w/ sprinkled anchor text beats them.

Those backlinks and anchor text did the trick I guess. I will try this on a new domain. I checked on majesticseo & saw the surge in links to 6,000 over a year ago after it came online, then it was steady at 300 per month ongoing.

I feel like Mulder being led astray on what really is the truth in SEO world. ;P

looks like the old stuff still works...believe it or not, 1 site I have only had dir submissions and ranks well for quite a few kw terms.(anchor text was in play again)

[sbp8610]

This just continues to prove that Google loves backlinks. No matter what type of keywords your competing for or anything like that it's all about getting those links.

-Scott

PR means nothing and I have been saying for many many months that a simple PR 0 can outrank an authority site with no problem.. Matter fact a brand new domain can outrank an authority site..

James

[Lukas]

I did a test years ago on just getting extremely relevant quality links & it worked very well.

The next test is to get 10k to 20k whatever links (for different site altogether) as a guinea pig site.
I guess 6 months is a good time frame.

So, the debate will continue to live (about 20 strong PR relevant links or 10,000's of links).
In the case of getting 10,000+ links most /anchor text, kw tools like Samurai and MNF that say "yay" or "nay" for this or that kw become futile.

[dburk]

Hi Lukas,

Google ranks pages primarily on relevance, PR is not a factor unless you are in a dead tie with another web page's relevance. It has has to be this way, otherwise a select few websites would dominate every search for nearly every single keyword. There wouldn't be a need for search engines, you would just go to one of those websites for any and every topic.

By studying the SERPs you will see that the results are sorted by relevance, not PR or authority. The primary ranking power in backlinks is how they influence your page's relevance. It's not the total PR juice, but the relevant PR juice that impacts your ranking. If it was total PR juice then you would see SERPs sorted by PR. Again you would have a mere handful of websites the would dominate nearly every single keyword. You would have to be a PR9 or higher to ever show for any search.

The only reason to concern yourself with PR or authority is understand how it influences the potential value of a backlink. You can always outrank a high PR /Authority page just by a superior relevancy score.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet

PR means nothing and I have been saying for many many months that a simple PR 0 can outrank an authority site with no problem.. Matter fact a brand new domain can outrank an authority site..

James

Do you have proof to backup your claim?

It all depends on competition, on page, off page factors, do you have other ways to do it?

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Lukas,

Google ranks pages primarily on relevance, PR is not a factor unless you are in a dead tie with another web page's relevance. It has has to be this way, otherwise a select few websites would dominate every search for nearly every single keyword. There wouldn't be a need for search engines, you would just go to one of those websites for any and every topic.

Hi Don, are you referring to targeted keyword or relevant content on the site you get link?

Relevant sites' link doesn't mean anything to me, but the keyword in the link does!

Just to clarify you are not suggesting a site with relevant content will help Google rank for the related keywords...?

Originally Posted by dburk

By studying the SERPs you will see that the results are sorted by relevance, not PR or authority. The primary ranking power in backlinks is how they influence your page's relevance. It's not the total PR juice, but the relevant PR juice that impacts your ranking. If it was total PR juice then you would see SERPs sorted by PR. Again you would have a mere handful of websites the would dominate nearly every single keyword. You would have to be a PR9 or higher to ever show for any search.

If you have enough links with the targeted keywords pointing to your site, you can easily outrank any higher PR site!

However, if the content is on authority site, and with tons of links on the page you try to outrank, you will need to work harder

Originally Posted by dburk

The only reason to concern yourself with PR or authority is understand how it influences the potential value of a backlink. You can always outrank a high PR /Authority page just by a superior relevancy score.

I think you mean superior amount of links with targeted keyword? I agreed!

[dburk]

Hi kkchoon,

No!

You seem to want redefine what I am saying. If you disagree, then say so, and explain why I am wrong. I do occasionally misspeak and don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong, however redefining my statements is just patronizing.

My point is that search engines rank pages based on relevance and the primary value in backlinks is how they influence the target page's relevance. Backlinks from irrelevant pages have little or no beneficial ranking power. The PR of the page where a backlink is placed is used to weight the value of the backlink, but again it only benefits if the page itself is relevant.

If you want proof, my proof is that you cannot find a single instance in all the SERPs where backlinks from irrelevant pages has ever helped a page to rank in the SERP. I have studied this myself and made open challenges in this forum as well as others, and to date, no one has been able to find evidence that counters my assertion.

I will further add that the relevance of pages where you place or receive backlinks from is the primary factor in the backlink's power to influence your own page's ranking for a targeted keyword. The only role that anchor text plays is how it influence the relevance of the page where the link is placed. I will also assert that the anchor text of outbound links is perhaps the most powerful factor influencing a page's relevance.

If you can produce evidence that invalidates my assertions, I'd love to see it, please share.

[fir3d]

dburk, I understand what you are saying about relevance. Im pretty new to seo, so I havnt heard before about an outbound link helping your sites relevence. If I want to rank for "dog training" would it be wise to link to a random dog site with the anchor "dog training". I thought it would decrease pr, but if I understand what your saying it increases relevance.

[dburk]

Hi fir3d,

Yes, it is one of the most influential elements of on-page optimization. I have tested this and can prove it's effectiveness.

Many folks that are new to SEO make the mistake of thinking of relevance as an absolute value. Google sees relevance as a relative value and sorts the SERP listings based primarily on relevance. If you study how various techniques effect your page's relevancy score, you will understand precisely what it takes get top rankings for your targeted keyword.

[fir3d]

wow, I am going to try that on one of my sites today. What do you suggest I link to? My niche is for example dog training, I don't want to link to another site thats competing with me in the serps...

[dburk]

You could just link to the Wikipedia page on dog training for example.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by dburk

If you want proof, my proof is that you cannot find a single instance in all the SERPs where backlinks from irrelevant pages has ever helped a page to rank in the SERP. I have studied this myself and made open challenges in this forum as well as others, and to date, no one has been able to find evidence that counters my assertion.

Your experience is contradictory to the experience of many warrior members, myself included. On the flip side, I would have to be an idiot to publicly share relevant sites of mine on this point as that does nothing at all for me. Its amazing how easy it is to rank a site with 200 of irrelevant high PR profile backlinks way ahead of other sites with many more "relevant" sites.

[Tom Goodwin]

Originally Posted by dburk

You could just link to the Wikipedia page on dog training for example.

So thereby making the Wikipedia the authority site here, and not your own site? huh?

[dburk]

Originally Posted by thmgoodw

Your experience is contradictory to the experience of many warrior members, myself included. On the flip side, I would have to be an idiot to publicly share relevant sites of mine on this point as that does nothing at all for me. Its amazing how easy it is to rank a site with 200 of irrelevant high PR profile backlinks way ahead of other sites with many more "relevant" sites.

If the opposite of what I said was true there would be many examples that you could find simply by running a bunch of searches on Google and examining the backlinks. I have already done this many times and have yet to come across a single website that contradicts my assertion.

There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword, at least none that I have found and I challenge you or anyone else reading this forum to produce just one verifiable example. Spread the word far and wide, I believe we can all learn something from this exercise.

I take it by your post that you have a personal experience or knowledge of someone with personal experience. Lets put this myth to rest, produce a single example and I will publicly admit I was wrong and you were the one that schooled me.


Examples of relevant backlinks that have gotten pages ranked are everywhere, I take it you are not asserting there are none. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, we must find an example to prove a positive. I have not been able to find an example of backlinks from irrelevant pages that have boosted a page's rank, much less hundreds or thousands of cases. I doubt that you can find one either.

I think there are plenty of people who believe this myth, but who can produce evidence? Anyone?

[samcarson]

Hi Don

I have a couple of questions

1). So should the anchor text of an outbound and inbound link on a page be the same?

2). Angela recommends that the anchor text for inbound links should be the exact keyword being targeted, what are your views on this?

Thanks in advance

Sam

[fir3d]

Originally Posted by samcarson

Hi Don

I have a couple of questions

1). So should the anchor text of an outbound and inbound link on a page be the same?

2). Angela recommends that the anchor text for inbound links should be the exact keyword being targeted, what are your views on this?

Thanks in advance

Sam

From what I have heard you should vary the anchor text so that the links look natural rather than using some bot to spam links.

[kylelmoon]

Hmm... such a big debate here on relevant and irrelevant backlinks.
Well here is my opinion on this topic (don't get me wrong, it's just my opinion)
Relevant backlinks - will certainly give big points in your SERP efforts.
Irrelevant backlinks - will still give you points, but not as big.
Having 100 Relevant backlinks vs 10000 irrelevant backlinks...
Which of this do you think will get on top quickly of the SERP?
my take is the 2nd one, well then again it's just me.

[jasonmorgan]

2). Angela recommends that the anchor text for inbound links should be the exact keyword being targeted, what are your views on this?

I used to think there was some truth to this but am now beginning to believe the opposite.

After reverse engineering many well ranking sites that gained backlinks naturally I'm finding more and more cases of sites that rank well without having to rely on exact keyword anchor text.

I'm not sure at what point it is no longer necessary and what the deciding factors are, but there is a point where site relevance and content appear to take a greater role over anchor text.

It's all part of the google algorithm mystery.

[moralde]

I don't know why the issue of the 'irrelevance' of the backlinks is being pushed hard here. One thing I know for sure is that I used Angela/Paul's backlinking system and I got almost instant results. And the sites that I put my backlinks in have nothing whatsoever to do with my niche.

If you rely on searching out the backlinks of a site, you'll never get anywhere because most of these online backlink checkers only return some obvious blog links, comment links, etc. I tried checking my own backlinks, and the backlinks I planted using Angela's never showed. But I attribute my site's rise in the SERPs entirely to it.

All you need to do is EXPERIENCE personally (not talk to death) the power of 'irrelevant' backlinks. PERIOD.

[Mike Anthony]

I have one rule of thumb. I don't toss everything overboard based on one site or search result. People do this all the time. they point to one thing on one search result and say AHA. With hundreds of things thatGoogle looks at most of which we can only guess at that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Eg. I am not convinced that this sites PR is in fact 0. Being a new site it may have missed the PR update. I'm not even sure that the search result will even hold up for more than a week or month. You could look at the site as a case study and by the time you are finished it drops like a rock.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by samcarson

Hi Don

I have a couple of questions

1). So should the anchor text of an outbound and inbound link on a page be the same?

2). Angela recommends that the anchor text for inbound links should be the exact keyword being targeted, what are your views on this?

Thanks in advance

Sam

Hi Sam,

It's essential that the page that you place backlinks on is relevant to the keyword you are targeting if you want to get any ranking benefit. Since you may not be able to control many of the on-page factors where you place you backlinks, it helps a great deal if you use your targeted keyword as the anchor text. In doing so, you make that page highly relevant to your targeted keyword which helps your page rank higher for that keyword.

If the page is already relevant, using your keyword in the anchor text is not required, but it still helps.

Likewise, placing outbound links on your landing page with your targeted keyword as the anchor text will help increase your pages relevancy score. You are creating a web that is relevant in both directions outbound and inbound. Of course, pay attention to all of your on-page factors to fully optimize your page.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Lets put this myth to rest, produce a single example and I will publicly admit I was wrong and you were the one that schooled me.

I think there are plenty of people who believe this myth, but who can produce evidence? Anyone?

If this is about ego you can leave the rest of us out of it. I'm tired of the SEO guru posturing. Right now from where I stand I haven't seen a lot of evidence put up by either of you. You do not have the raw data for any site that tells you conclusively what each backlink is worth to google so I do not get how you can claim that an irrelevant backlink has never mattered in a search result. My goodness. Using backlink tools you cannot even see every backlink a site has much less determine how google counted each link.

[moralde]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

If this is about ego you can leave the rest of us out of it. I'm tired of the SEO guru posturing. Right now from where I stand I haven't seen a lot of evidence put up by either of you. You do not have the raw data for any site that tells you conclusively what each backlink is worth to google so I do not get how you can claim that an irrelevant backlink has never mattered in a search result. My goodness. Using backlink tools you cannot even see every backlink a site has much less determine how google counted each link.

Exactly!!! Whew!

[oscarkool]

Keyword in the domain is huge. That is why. I have passed up authority sites with hardly any backlinks at all just because I have the keyword in my URL. The only backlinks I have are about 20 bookmarks which aren't even heavily weighted at all.

[MWick]

Content and appropriate related quality links go along way. PR isnt' everything which is a misconception all webmasters fall into.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

If this is about ego you can leave the rest of us out of it. I'm tired of the SEO guru posturing. Right now from where I stand I haven't seen a lot of evidence put up by either of you. You do not have the raw data for any site that tells you conclusively what each backlink is worth to google so I do not get how you can claim that an irrelevant backlink has never mattered in a search result. My goodness. Using backlink tools you cannot even see every backlink a site has much less determine how google counted each link.

Hi Mike,

That's my point, there is no evidence that I can find that backlinks from irrelevant pages have ever helped a page rank for a keyword.

I did a research project for a client where we studied backlink reports for nearly 1300 web pages. There was not one case where a page earned rankings from irrelevant backlinks.

Since then I have done a lot more research and have always looked for signs of a page ranking based on irrelevant backlinks, and you know what I have found? No evidence. That's why I bring it up in this forum. I seem to recall a number of members commenting that backlinks from irrelevant have helped them rank. I would love to see one example of this because I am convinced it is not possible.

So please, if anyone can provide a single verifiable example, we can all learn from this discussion. And if no one can provide an example, then we all learn from that as well.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

I did a research project for a client where we studied backlink reports for nearly 1300 web pages. There was not one case where a page earned rankings from irrelevant backlinks.

Yes I have responded to this assertion of yours on another thread. From what I see you are light on research methodology. You make sweeping genralities and haven't shown you have given much consideration to isolating out contributing factors.

Perhaps I am wrong. Please let us know what your methodology for this study was and how you isolated out every factor in a sites ranking to determine what played no part, I'm not denying it can't be done. As I told you I lean toward this as its semantically more elegant but I need harder proof than what you have provided. Without your methodology and an example site where this method based study was done its merely an anecdotal assertion.


Anyone can come on a forum and claim to have done a study and what the results were. The proof is in seeing the methodology or lack of one and a site where that study was actually done using the methodology

[dburk]

Mike,

You might as well be arguing that the sky is not blue since I have not done a study to isolate all the various color factors. Where is the evidence that the sky is blue? how could one make such an assertion without the proper scientific methods? yes I am mocking you.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the scientific method. It's just that you are asking for a scientific study to prove something that should be as plain and obvious to you as the sky being blue.

I did give you several examples of the super obvious in the other thread while you posted this ridiculous demand over in this thread. Simply pointing out the obvious is not good enough for you. You seem intent on badgering me.

Again I am the one that doubts the claims. I am the one that cannot find any evidence to support those claims and yet you ask me to prove it. The absence of evidence is the proof. I am following an accepted scientific principle, Occam's Razors. Need I present an in depth study to point to the plain and obvious. I think not, I think you must be having a bad day and just taking it out on me in this forum. Please come back when you are in a better mood!

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi kkchoon,

No!

You seem to want redefine what I am saying. If you disagree, then say so, and explain why I am wrong. I do occasionally misspeak and don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong, however redefining my statements is just patronizing.

My point is that search engines rank pages based on relevance and the primary value in backlinks is how they influence the target page's relevance. Backlinks from irrelevant pages have little or no beneficial ranking power. The PR of the page where a backlink is placed is used to weight the value of the backlink, but again it only benefits if the page itself is relevant.

Hey Don, nice to see you again!

Never mind the redefinition, I will get back to you when the test is finished.

Kok Choon

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by kylelmoon

Hmm... such a big debate here on relevant and irrelevant backlinks.
Well here is my opinion on this topic (don't get me wrong, it's just my opinion)
Relevant backlinks - will certainly give big points in your SERP efforts.
Irrelevant backlinks - will still give you points, but not as big.
Having 100 Relevant backlinks vs 10000 irrelevant backlinks...
Which of this do you think will get on top quickly of the SERP?
my take is the 2nd one, well then again it's just me.

Hi Kyle, I will be testing what Don said, and hopefully we can be sure of that, as this greatly affect our strategy towards SEO!

[jazbo]

Crikey! Erm, you are seriously saying you have never done competitor research and not found a site that ranks well, but when you analyze their links you can hardly find a relevant link.

Two points:

Quote from Rand Fishkin on 2nd October:

“To be totally honest, I don’t think the content relationship (relevancy) or matching subject matter has much of an impact in the algo right now. Off-topic links, so long as they’re from powerful, trustworthy sources, seem to help just as much as those with topical matches.
It may seem weird, but I know I’m far from the only SEO to have observed this phenomenon…..”

I and most other people would value SEOMOZ's analysing powers (mozrank and linkscape) over yours personally.


Second point - define what is relevant.

My wife runs an outsource call centre. Many of her inbound links come from clients sites, which to an outsider are completely irrelevant links, But they are actually hugely relevant and help her site to rank.

Google CANNOT define relevancy other than at a very basic level, and to suggest that it offers weight only to what it sees are relevant links, and ignores legitimate links because it cannot understand the relevance it utter, utter rubbish.

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi kkchoon,

No!

You seem to want redefine what I am saying. If you disagree, then say so, and explain why I am wrong. I do occasionally misspeak and don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong, however redefining my statements is just patronizing.

My point is that search engines rank pages based on relevance and the primary value in backlinks is how they influence the target page's relevance. Backlinks from irrelevant pages have little or no beneficial ranking power. The PR of the page where a backlink is placed is used to weight the value of the backlink, but again it only benefits if the page itself is relevant.

If you want proof, my proof is that you cannot find a single instance in all the SERPs where backlinks from irrelevant pages has ever helped a page to rank in the SERP. I have studied this myself and made open challenges in this forum as well as others, and to date, no one has been able to find evidence that counters my assertion.

I will further add that the relevance of pages where you place or receive backlinks from is the primary factor in the backlink's power to influence your own page's ranking for a targeted keyword. The only role that anchor text plays is how it influence the relevance of the page where the link is placed. I will also assert that the anchor text of outbound links is perhaps the most powerful factor influencing a page's relevance.

If you can produce evidence that invalidates my assertions, I'd love to see it, please share.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Hey Don, nice to see you again!

Never mind the redefinition, I will get back to you when the test is finished.

Kok Choon

Hi Kok Choon,

I ran a similar test a few years back. What I found I was that backlinks from irrelevant pages resulting in no ranking in the SERP at all. I also discovered that it is very easy to make the page, where you place a backlink, highly relevant for your targeted keyword. And in doing so it gives you tremendous ranking benefit.

Things change over time and it good to run your own tests so that you know valid methods were used.

Good luck and keep us posted.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Kok Choon,

I ran a similar test a few years back. What I found I was that backlinks from irrelevant pages resulting in no ranking in the SERP at all. I also discovered that it is very easy to make the page, where you place a backlink, highly relevant for your targeted keyword. And in doing so it gives you tremendous ranking benefit.

Things change over time and it good to run your own tests so that you know valid methods were used.

Good luck and keep us posted.

Hey Don, will do! Keep in touch

[jazbo]

I can actually refute this. When my company was setting up our latest project we ran a three month test on ranking a site for keywords using only non-relevant anchor text links on non-relevant sites. Guess what, it ranks for relevant on page keywords very well even a year on.

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Kok Choon,

I ran a similar test a few years back. What I found I was that backlinks from irrelevant pages resulting in no ranking in the SERP at all. I also discovered that it is very easy to make the page, where you place a backlink, highly relevant for your targeted keyword. And in doing so it gives you tremendous ranking benefit.

Things change over time and it good to run your own tests so that you know valid methods were used.

Good luck and keep us posted.

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by jazbo

I can actually refute this. When my company was setting up our latest project we ran a three month test on ranking a site for keywords using only non-relevant anchor text links on non-relevant sites. Guess what, it ranks for relevant on page keywords very well even a year on.

Thanks for the input, I will take this into consideration when we run the test!

[Zach Booker]

I got lazy and only read half this thread. But as far as backlink relevancy Don is right.

Your anchor text is the most crucial part in the relevancy of the page in which it's placed.

BUT here is my theory...

...Just like you can't keyword stuff your pages you can't stuff all your keywords with the same anchor text - it just wouldn't work. (Well it does, but not as well as you might hope.)

If I made it to page one of Digg for my dog training site not everyone would link back to me with dog training. In fact most would say click here or check this out...just the way it works.

Keyword stuffing your anchor text is going to kick a lot of people in the ass - having around a 30% density is fine but having a 80% exact match keyword anchor text is just logically stupid.

And Google will take this into account, imo.

...Here's what I do. Everyone should be getting a variety of links, right? For my link wheels, the most powerful part of my normal SEO strategy, all links are exact or LSI keywords. (So there pretty bang on.)

I do this because these links are worth a lot - same with Ezine Articles etc,.

But for low class article submission I may vary it to things like 'click here'. Every back link counts but when it comes down to it these article directories can't swing the same value as Ezine so it's no concern to me that everything I do says "click here". It simply brings down my keyword percentage.

As long as your on page SEO, which is becoming more important in Google's eyes, is great than Google will know what your trying to rank for and will rank you for it.

Zach

[kkchoon]

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

I got lazy and only read half this thread. But as far as backlink relevancy Don is right.

Your anchor text is the most crucial part in the relevancy of the page in which it's placed.

BUT here is my theory...

...Just like you can't keyword stuff your pages you can't stuff all your keywords with the same anchor text - it just wouldn't work. (Well it does, but not as well as you might hope.)

Are you saying something like repeating your keywords twice or more in the anchor text? Who would do that?

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

If I made it to page one of Digg for my dog training site not everyone would link back to me with dog training. In fact most would say click here or check this out...just the way it works.

That's pure white hat method !

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

Keyword stuffing your anchor text is going to kick a lot of people in the ass - having around a 30% density is fine but having a 80% exact match keyword anchor text is just logically stupid.

And Google will take this into account, imo.

How to keyword stuff in links? anchor text usually very short!

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

...Here's what I do. Everyone should be getting a variety of links, right? For my link wheels, the most powerful part of my normal SEO strategy, all links are exact or LSI keywords. (So there pretty bang on.)

I do this because these links are worth a lot - same with Ezine Articles etc,.

I should state that, I don't think LSI your link's anchor text would help, at least Dan Thies and those guys from Stompernet don't agree with this.

They did an experiment, and shows LSI doesn't help you rank for any of the varied keywords, in fact, they recommend you stick with your targeted keywords.

However, I still agree that on page optimization should apply LSI, use theme keywords as your categories or in the content. All this need thorough test to be sure, and I have reasons to believe on page LSI optimization does work.

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

But for low class article submission I may vary it to things like 'click here'. Every back link counts but when it comes down to it these article directories can't swing the same value as Ezine so it's no concern to me that everything I do says "click here". It simply brings down my keyword percentage.

As long as your on page SEO, which is becoming more important in Google's eyes, is great than Google will know what your trying to rank for and will rank you for it.
Zach

I think a stronger call to action is a good way to do it!

The on page factor seems to have more weight in Google Caffeine, still too early to tell.

Kok Choon

[jasonmorgan]

Keyword stuffing your anchor text is going to kick a lot of people in the ass - having around a 30% density is fine but having a 80% exact match keyword anchor text is just logically stupid.

I've been looking into this a lot lately and I'm thinking 40% - 60% is a good number to aim for when you start reaching a higher number of backlinks 2,000+

My reason for this, I'm seeing a lot of 'authority' sites that are ranking well without an overkill of the same keywords used in their anchor text. Even the big sites that are using un-organic techniques to build up backlinks have a wide variety of anchor text.

If I made it to page one of Digg for my dog training site not everyone would link back to me with dog training. In fact most would say click here or check this out...just the way it works.

Exactly, they have a mix of anchor texts... I think focusing on your keywords at first is a good idea to get yourself on the map but once you are on the map I am starting to believe that is when other SEO factors really start to kick in and take priority.

I think so many people are hung up on anchor text keyword overkill because a) they have been told to do this by the person they buy their backlinks from, and b) they are in low competition niches with lower backlink counts.

[Zach Booker]

@kkchoon

Maybe I didn't really make it clear in what I was getting at. I'm not saying i'm going to keyword stuff the anchor text in terms of, "Dog training dog review training dog training advice."

I simply mean every back link shouldn't be my target keyword - just isn't natural.

So if I was going for dog training maybe it'd break down like.

40% - dog training
10% - dog training advice
10% - click here
etc etc

The point of using LSI keywords is not to try and rank for those keywords - just to mix up and lower the density of your main keyword being used as anchor text.

LSI keywords aren't a must, maybe they don't help at all - although I believe they do, but what else are you going to do to bring down the density? Use random keywords?

On a random side note I sincerely don't like the methods preached by those SEO guru's. Except for Andy Jenkins and Dan Thies - those guys are legit.

SEO is drop dead simple and hasn't changed much since the early 2000's. Often times people start to confuse and misconstrue things like in this thread - reading over this thread it makes SEO out to be some kind of art form and probably really discourages those wanting to get started in SEO.

@ Jason

Yeah you're 100% right. Another thing people get too caught up on is building links - and not content.

When I first started into SEO I knew nothing and ranked for a pretty hard keyword by simply writing 10 articles every day and putting it on my blog. I naturally got a few links and social bookmarked some things - but a fat site will always get you Google love.

Zach

[jasonmorgan]

I'm just trying to figure this stuff out like everybody else

I'm coming to the conclusion of...

basic onpage SEO, a steady growth of backlinks including IP diversity, mixing up the anchor text and backlinking to the index as well as individual pages plus a steady addition of new content is all there is too it. The devil is in the details but basics of SEO (from what I'm starting to believe and what is working for me) isn't all that complex.

I'm still experimenting with page relevance and how it influences the strength of a backlink.

Quality content is debatable, I don't think google knows the difference between Shakespear and my cat walking across the keyboard as long as my keywords can be found somewhere on the page.

[Zach Booker]

Wouldn't go as far as to say cat walking across the keyboard. But I used to crank the tunes and just ramble. I could do an article in a few minutes because I pretty just rambled - if I went to a good party the previous night i'd talk about it and just add weight loss keywords in it. As long as it makes sense and is somewhat on point it doesn't really matter.

(Unless eyeballs are gonna see it.)

Now though I do pay around 7-10 dollars per article and get really well done stuff. I do this because, believe it or not, it's very cost effective. I've had tons of high PR sites link to my articles because there just straight, great content.

*To get link backs you shouldn't be pimping stuff in these articles. (Authority sites don't like it obviously.)

...

One thing I really encourage is that everyone pick up SEO Hosting - SEO Web Hosting with cPanel and Multiple Class C IP Addresses. <- Not an affiliate link.

Having every site, or nearly every site, on a different c-class IP is very important to me. Personally I want my sites untraceable. (Not that I do anything bad - just with all the stuff going on with the FTC you never do know.)

It's like 30 bucks a month and 5-8 bucks per c-class - it's beyond worth it.

Also go with NameCheap for all your domains because you get free "who is" guard. Places like bluehost charge 5 bucks extra for it - I believe so does Godaddy.

...

Now that I think of it I should warn everyone that Google has gone after a few biz-op sites that rank organically. Seriously.

A buddy of mine told me the other week that a few months ago Google de-indexed around 300 biz-op sites. These aren't the advertisers sites but affiliate sites - some of which didn't even sell them too hard.

If you pimp out acai or colon offers you don't have anything to worry about. Google doesn't like re-bills but unless your doing real volume, 100+ leads a day, than you won't be bothered.

All IP's, so i'm told, were also blocked meaning any other site on that IP could've been de-indexed also. This is a case where SEO hosting literally saved a bunch of people's lively hoods.

Who knows what Google will do next so do take caution if your involved in promoting anything too hard like CPA offers.

Anyway enough rambling,

Zach

[jasonmorgan]

Wouldn't go as far as to say cat walking across the keyboard. But I used to crank the tunes and just ramble. I could do an article in a few minutes because I pretty just rambled - if I went to a good party the previous night i'd talk about it and just add weight loss keywords in it. As long as it makes sense and is somewhat on point it doesn't really matter.

I completely agree.. I do actually try to write text that will sell. I was referring more to what SE's see. There is a lot of talk about quality content increases traffic which I don't believe because google bots aren't skynet (yet). Quality content is for visitors and making sales.

[fashionhairem]

interesting information interesting post...

[Zach Booker]

Forgot to add that, when you sign up for, SEO Hosting - SEO Web Hosting with cPanel and Multiple Class C IP Addresses you'll get in free if you use the coupon 35off.

(It gets you 35 dollars off so assuming you didn't also register a domain it won't cost ya a dime.)



Zach

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by dburk

Mike,

You might as well be arguing that the sky is not blue since I have not done a study to isolate all the various color factors. Where is the evidence that the sky is blue? how could one make such an assertion without the proper scientific methods? yes I am mocking you.!

Dburk rather than covering the same issues in two threads I will link to my repsonse to you here

Banned From Google! Careful, This May Happen to You


I think anyone that reads the last page will see how utterly useless your research methodology is and once they see the examples you included in that thread to make the point you were making they will see for themselves you have no clue what you are talking about.

I dont need to mock you. You did a pretty good job of mocking yourself in that thread. As for all the rest of your gamemanship the facts still are that I am very open to finding evidence - real evidence of what you say. Unlike you I need things based on real evidence not assumption. Occan's razor does not preclude real research on solid facts with logical assumptions . You don't grasp that concept either.

Your sky is blue nonsense comparison has no relevance. Its not obvious at all the various critia Google uses to rank a site especially since we all know they keep quite a bit of it under wraps. The reason you think its all obvious is because you can't grasp what we are talking about as firmly and finally evidenced in that thread I linked to.

But lets keep it in one thread and let this one stay on track. Agreed?