Link PR VS Link Relevance

[msb1040]

Hey guys me and my friend are in and argument here it is:

Say you have a Car site and your trying to rank for car related terms.
I would like to know which is more important when getting links ( PR or link Relevance):
So which is more important:
- The links PR
- or the Relevance of the link

For example: If you have a car site and you had a choice of a link from a PR7 site that is all about "women's dresses" which has nothing to do with your site or a relevant link from a PR1-PR3 site from a site all about "Cars".... which link would help the most?

I say the pr7, my friend says the pr1-3

Please do not give General answers like "It depends"....
I need to know... Which is more important. PR... or Relevance


Thanks for reading,
mike

[Justin Chaschowy]

Relevance for sure, most weight given to backlinks are derived from how much related the content is to eachother. Back in the old days a high PR site would help you more, but search engines are much more smarter now and I'd rather have the related ones, which are more effective and would cost less since lower PR.

[MikeFriedman]

I would prefer high PR, relevant links, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'll take the high PR link every single time.

[Kiril S]

We still don't know Google's algorithm for relevance, but we know for sure about high PR links. IMHO, relevancy is overrated.

How do you think "theme design" websites get their
backlinks?? Their link is almost always included in the footer, how do you except them to get relevant backlinks if their theme can be used for any websites.

High PR > Relevance

However, relevance is a plus if you're also building for traffic, since people might actually click your backlinks.

[John Williamson]

It's a close call, but I'd say high PR over relevance, provided your keyword phrase is the anchor text for the link. Definitely high PR over relevance if the relevant page was only PR0-PR1.

[Mike Anthony]

Originally Posted by msb1040

For example: If you have a car site and you had a choice of a link from a PR7 site that is all about "women's dresses" which has nothing to do with your site or a relevant link from a PR1-PR3 site from a site all about "Cars".... which link would help the most?

I say the pr7, my friend says the pr1-3

In the context of your question I would have to choose the PR. I am assuming you can get the anchor text you want in this hypothetical scenario. I think there may be a factor for relevance now in the algo but there is really nothing to say that a site that deals with women's dresses could not also recommend a a particular car for women. In natural real life people talk and refer to many things not relatd to their key interests.

PR7 to a 1? No contest. take the PR7

[ebusinessireader]

Unfortunately, no one knows the exact algorithm of google.

[dburk]

Hi Mike,

I believe you are confused about the definition of "link relevance". Anyone can come up with their own definition, but the only useful definition is is one that corresponds to Google's definition of "link relevance". Google's definition of link relevance has absolutely nothing to do with "site" topic. Google rankings are all about page level signals, not "site" level signals.

So, if you have a link from a page that has no relevant content, then and only then do you have an irrelevant link. The mere act of adding relevant anchor text will make that link relevant, and it also makes that page relevant.

With a little creativity you can make virtually any anchor text relevant to both the page topic as well as the landing page topic. In the example you gave above, placing a link to a page about cars on a page about lady's dresses: i.e. Find the perfect car to go with that new dress!

While an irrelevant backlink will have no direct influence on your SERP ranking, you can get a smaller secondary influence if you channel the link juice through a relevant anchor downstream. You will never recieve any ranking benefit until after you have channeled the link juice through a relevant anchor text.

[msb1040]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi Mike,

I believe you are confused about the definition of "link relevance". Anyone can come up with their own definition, but the only useful definition is is one that corresponds to Google's definition of "link relevance". Google's definition of link relevance has absolutely nothing to do with "site" topic. Google rankings are all about page level signals, not "site" level signals.

So, if you have a link from a page that has no relevant content, then and only then do you have an irrelevant link. The mere act of adding relevant anchor text will make that link relevant, and it also makes that page relevant.

With a little creativity you can make virtually any anchor text relevant to both the page topic as well as the landing page topic. In the example you gave above, placing a link to a page about cars on a page about lady's dresses: i.e. Find the perfect car to go with that new dress!

While an irrelevant backlink will have no direct influence on your SERP ranking, you can get a smaller secondary influence if you channel the link juice through a relevant anchor downstream. You will never recieve any ranking benefit until after you have channeled the link juice through a relevant anchor text.

Thanks, but i know what link relevancy is... the question is 7PR irrelevant link or a PR1 relevant link

[JSProjects]

Originally Posted by MikeFriedman

I would prefer high PR, relevant links, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'll take the high PR link every single time.

Agreed. Choosing between a high PR / relevant link and a high PR unrelated link is a no brainer. You choose the relevant link.

But if you have the choice between a PR5 link and a PR0 link you go for the PR5 link. Even if it's not in your niche.

[dburk]

Originally Posted by msb1040

Thanks, but i know what link relevancy is... the question is 7PR irrelevant link or a PR1 relevant link

Hi msb1040,

I beg to differ, your OP suggests otherwise. Website topics have nothing to do with whether a link is relevant or not. This is a common misconception, so I attempted to clarify that in my reply.

Let's assume that you do know what link relevancy is, you should also know that an irrelevant link has no direct influence on ranking. You receive absolutely no direct benefit from an irrelevant backlink, regardless of the PR. So your "irrelevant PR7" backlink has no direct ranking benefit.

Notice in the above assertions I used the adjective "direct". That is because there is the possibility of an "indirect" benefit. Since this potential "indirect" benefit is conditioned upon certain subsequent circumstances, the correct answer is sometimes a PR1 relevant link is more valuable than a irrelevant PR7 link, and sometimes it isn't.

Anyone who tells you either one is more valuable than the other will be wrong in some cases and correct in others. In my reply above I attempted to explain the conditions required for one option to be more more valuable than the other. Please reread my original reply and ask more questions if you do not understand.

[msb1040]

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi msb1040,

I beg to differ, your OP suggests otherwise. Website topics have nothing to do with whether a link is relevant or not. This is a common misconception, so I attempted to clarify that in my reply.

Let's assume that you do know what link relevancy is, you should also know that an irrelevant link has no direct influence on ranking. You receive absolutely no direct benefit from an irrelevant backlink, regardless of the PR. So your "irrelevant PR7" backlink has no direct ranking benefit.

Notice in the above assertions I used the adjective "direct". That is because there is the possibility of an "indirect" benefit. Since this potential "indirect" benefit is conditioned upon certain subsequent circumstances, the correct answer is sometimes a PR1 relevant link is more valuable than a irrelevant PR7 link, and sometimes it isn't.

Anyone who tells you either one is more valuable than the other will be wrong in some cases and correct in others. In my reply above I attempted to explain the conditions required for one option to be more more valuable than the other. Please reread my original reply and ask more questions if you do not understand.

Yes exactly, the relevancy is determined by the page not the site

[David Ogden]

Search engines are supposedly designed to answer people questions, so that if you are looking for cars and a site for dresses show you would not be very pleased. Your links must always come from a source relevant to you subject. To be honest I tend to ignore page rank apart from looking at Alexa results.

[joetheseo]

high PR every time

[xxxJamesxxx]

at the time of writing this, I'd say high PR anyday of the week.

James

[MaverickUK]

I would go for higher PR every single time. Relevance is by far the most over rated aspect of backlinking, or at least in the way i'm referring to. For me personally the only relevance that matters is if it's a contextual link, that the text is relevant to the site you're promoting (i.e. don't have a link for an adult website inside an article that talks about electronics).

[NastyBlast]

Originally Posted by msb1040

Yes exactly, the relevancy is determined by the page not the site

have you listened to anything I've been saying when talking about domain theme?

[dburk]

Originally Posted by NastyBlast

have you listened to anything I've been saying when talking about domain theme?

Hi NastyBlast,

So exactly what have you been saying about "domain theme"? Please share!