Do on-page factors effect a backlink?

[Benguy]

I want to know if on-page factors effect a backlink. We can all agree that anchor text is very effective/important, but are there further on-page elements that affect backlinks?

Some things to consider:

1) Google has stated that they look at the content surrounding images:

"The page the image is on, and the content around the image (including any captions or image titles), provide search engines with important information about the subject matter of your image. For example, if you have a picture of a polar bear on a page about home-grown tomatoes, you'll be sending a confused message to the search engines about the subject matter of polarbear.jpg.
Wherever possible, it's a good idea to make sure that images are placed near the relevant text. In addition, we recommend providing good, descriptive titles and captions for your images."


What does this have to do with backinks? Maybe nothing at all! But is it silly to speculate that a backlink with polarbear anchor text might be equally confusing on a page about home-grown tomatoes?


2) Google has stated that nofollow links do not pass on anchor text, and Matt Cutts even made a very blunt statement on them at the end of his post about PageRank Sculpting:

"The essential thing you need to know is that nofollow links don’t help sites rank higher in Google’s search results."

So does this mean that a link without anchor text (disregarding PR) won't help you rank? Are on-page factors also ignored in nofollow links, or are they never considered in the first place? Unless there are other attributes to nofollow links or he was overly simplistic in his statement, it sounds like he is saying it's anchor text or bust for relevance in a backlink .

What do you guys think?

[Benguy]

any takers?

[paulgl]

There is a general feeling, espoused by google actually as well,
that links in content are worth more. Whatever "more" is.
Also, a link in a footer may be worth "less." Whatever less is.

I know that when I sell links, people always want a sentence with
a text link in the content.

I also know that for internal linking, the point is moot.

It seems to only affect outside links.

And because nothing is perfect, it's hard to think that in every
case, google values a contexual link better.

If I could get a link on a PR8 website, I would take a link
down far on the page in a heart beat.

Paul

[Benguy]

Thanks Paul, I appreciate the response. Can you explain this further:

Originally Posted by paulgl

I also know that for internal linking, the point is moot.

It seems to only affect outside links...

Would this be to prevent abusing link relevance and creating super-relevant internal links? Should I not bother with anchor text on internal links?

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Benguy

Thanks Paul, I appreciate the response. Can you explain this further:

Would this be to prevent abusing link relevance and creating super-relevant internal links? Should I not bother with anchor text on internal links?

I can only go by experience. All of my internal linking, on all pages, on all of my
websites, are done via a sidebar to the left that appears on each and every page.

75% of the subpages, linked off of this sidebar, all have PR3 or higher due to only
internal linking. Yes, it is true that I do have others linking to these somewhere,
just don't keep track. Obviously, internal links must be given a different look.
Google expects them.

I also think it goes to the whole anti-spam google campaign. Somehow an outside
link, surrounded and in content, looks less spammy.

I will also admit that I am the first to tell people to not worry about some mythical
man behind the google curtain, just looking for things to punt.

I can only say that in this case, from what I have read from google (Matt Cutts)
and outside people who I consider "authorities," it seems to be the general consensus
as to what I said above, that google does view links on a page in a different light now.

I don't really believe that you can "spam" internal links. That is, normal internal linking
where ever it fits. I suppose if you put the same link 20 times on a page....but one
would never do that. On subpages that are related, the internal link is on the sidebar,
as well as contexually.

I think the whole idea is to stop link farms, and those 1997-ish pages like
"Friends of" pages with 1,000 links, link swapping, etc. Or at least to make
them more palatable by putting them in content.

It's the only way I will ever sell links.

Image links would seem to be a non-issue too, so long as it's done within
reason, whatever that means.

Paul