PR 0 site Ahead of Authority sites

14 years ago

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?

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1368937].message }}

jasonmorgan

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

I'm all about that bass.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1368970].message }}

thmgoodw

14 years ago

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:rolleyes

. 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.

Thanks

Signature

Masters Powerlifting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1368988].message }}

itcoll

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1369103].message }}

Lukas 14 years ago

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)
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1369217].message }}
- sbp8610 14 years ago
  
  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
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "The Power Pyramid" 300+ Web 2.0 Link Pyramid and 20k+ Blog Comments... Only $47!!!
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1369344].message }}

TheRichJerksNet

14 years ago

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

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1370132].message }}

Lukas

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1370210].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1370529].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

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!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1370632].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
4 replies

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371339].message }}

fir3d 14 years ago

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.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371385].message }}
- dburk 14 years ago
  
  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.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
  * Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371461].message }}
  
  fir3d 14 years ago
  
  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...
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371719].message }}
  
  dburk 14 years ago
  
  You could just link to the Wikipedia page on dog training for example.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
  * Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371777].message }}
  
  thmgoodw 14 years ago
  
  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?
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Masters Powerlifting
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371959].message }}

thmgoodw

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Masters Powerlifting

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1371956].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372008].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372432].message }}

moralde

14 years ago

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!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372444].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372719].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

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

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372933].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373153].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

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

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ml#post1373099

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?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373980].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

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

http://www.warriorforum.com/adsense-...ml#post1373099

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?

Now you are just acting like a jerk!

I presented my argument civilly, with facts and logic. I even threw in an analogy to clarify the argument. I repeated it over and over for you and you keep bringing up straw man arguments, avoiding the incontrovertible facts while prodding me to prove a negative.

Face it, you have no sound argument. You have only attacked, attacked, attacked. Your attacks have grown steadily in viciousness and not once have you addressed the central question, just personal attacks.

I again assert that I have never seen evidence that supports the notion that backlinks from irrelevant pages has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword. You again, failing to provide any such evidence, have resorted to personal attacks.

I suspect all these personal attacks are meant to divert attention from the fact you have nothing to support the counter argument. If you do lets see it!

You continue to demand that I provide evidence while my point is that there is no evidence! Just another straw man argument by you trying to divert the conversation away from the central question: Where's the evidence?

Anyone of average intelligence knows you can't prove a negative. The absence of evidence is a valid criteria for assumption of nonexistence.

To use another analogy, if you look outside your home and don't see rain, it's reasonable to assume that it is not raining on your home. A statistical analysis supported by a series of scientific experiments, would likely conclude that indeed it is not raining on your home. I would find it ridiculously absurd if someone demanded just such a study and scientific experimentation must take place before I could make a casual and reasonable assumption of something so obvious.

And that is an analogy of the discussion you and I are having. Where's the rain?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374780].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Now you are just acting like a jerk!

I'm sure name calling will qualify you as trying to be civil and logical especially since it was preceded by you admitting openly that you were "mocking me" (your words). Again in fairness to his thread. Keep it on the other thread. No sense in derailing this one.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374930].message }}
- dburk 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  Again in fairness to his thread. Keep it on the other thread. No sense in derailing this one.
  
  I'd love to see you follow your own advice. You brought it to this thread, not me.
  
  I called you a jerk because you followed me to this thread with your badgering and personal attacks. You earned it! :p
  
  I'll see you in the other thread!
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  * Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
  * Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374981].message }}
  
  Mike Anthony 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by dburk
  
  I'd love to see you follow your own advice. You brought it to this thread, not me.
  
  You were continuing an attack on Kok in this thread that started there. So I commented on your flawed logic. No apologies
  
  I called you a jerk because you followed me to this thread with your badgering and personal attacks. You earned it! :p
  
  No problem. It serves as as disproof of you being either civil or logical. I'm cool with that. More power to you. See you there.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1375007].message }}

SEO ibiza

14 years ago

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

and there are a million more out there i promise.

Originally Posted by dburk

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?

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1375140].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

and there are a million more out there i promise.

Hi SEO ibiza,

I believe that report only addresses what he calls "Related Subject Sites" which is not at all what we have been discussing. If you can find anything in that report that demonstrates backlinks from totally irrelevant pages will help you rank, please provide an excerpt.

Let me repeat: I have never seen evidence that supports the assertion that a backlink from a totally irrelevant page will help you rank for a targeted keyword. You must first make the page relevant before you will receive any SERP ranking benefit.

Search engines rank web pages not websites. The "subject of a website" plays no direct role in the ranking of pages. That is what his findings show. The relevance of pages that link to a page, and the anchor text of outbound links, will have a significant impact on a page's relevancy score.

A perfect example of what I'm saying is Wikipedia. They have thousands of top ranked pages that have nothing to do with the "Website Subject". Wikipedia does a great job of linking relevant pages into a web that extends across many websites as well as pages on their own site. This web of relevant pages is what gives page its' main ranking power. Wikipedia does not have a team of workers building backlinks for them. Just a few well place relevant backlinks go a long way to helping them rank. Of course useful content tends to attract organic backlinks and that helps a great deal as well.

Thanks

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1375451].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

Yes he has made some great points in his blog about the lack of feasibility of determing relevance that gave me pause.

"If you start ignoring links because the linking site does not appear to be related to the linked-to site, you start descending into the quagmire of determining the keyword relevance of a site, such as a news site, which reports on every kind of subject imaginable. With so many subjects, the list of keywords it relates to would be huge, making such comparisons computationally expensive."

He also makes some interesting observations regarding authority and how every link to your site (not just single pages) is valuable in that regard and can and does affect SERPS.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1375704].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

Originally Posted by seo_freak

Do these PR0 high profile site really help with the SERP and PR of the site? I have been trying out some link building for my site, and I have to say I couldn't see much results so far.

PR 0 doesn't mean the link juice is the same

The higher Domain PR the more link juice will pass through each profile, and the closer the profile url to the main domain, the more link juice it carries! (See Terry Kyle Experiment)

That's why Angela and Paul type of backlinks work so well!

You should try it yourself, and if you like Angela backlinks, try mine and Mike, the more the better.

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

this is very much incorrect.

you need to source and read Jonathon Leger's "Search Engine Myths".

at the time of writing his site was like #4 or something in Google for "search Engine optimization" and he analysed the backlinks and broke it down in the report.

not only is it your long-awaited single example but it's also one of the most competitive terms you will ever come across.

and there are a million more out there i promise.

I have yet buy into relevancy, we will do some experiment and until then, I still think domain authority gives much more affect to your link building than relevancy.

Let's keep the mind open here for a moment, I'm not saying relevancy not important, but the weight, may not be that great..??

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1375741].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by kkchoon

Let's keep the mind open here for a moment, I'm not saying relevancy not important, but the weight, may not be that great..??

SEO ibiza does raise a point though that i'd like to look into. Although I have read leger's blog I didn't get the opportunity to dig into that report. Given the level of research Leger does he may save us some time in our upcoming joint project.
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1375840].message }}

moralde 14 years ago

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.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372346].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

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

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373197].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373244].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

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

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373247].message }}

jazbo

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373259].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

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!

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373311].message }}

jazbo

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

CONTENT WRITER. Reliable, UK-Based, 6 Years Experience - ANY NICHE
Click Here For Writing Samples & Online Ordering

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373241].message }}

samcarson

14 years ago

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

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

how to break 80

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372218].message }}

fir3d

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372246].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372376].message }}

kylelmoon

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372269].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

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!

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373203].message }}

jasonmorgan

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

I'm all about that bass.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372297].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372370].message }}

oscarkool

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372501].message }}

MWick

14 years ago

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

Thanks

Signature

SILENTGUN.COM - Webmaster Blog - Webmaster's Secret Weapon For Success.
Funny Pictures And Wallpapers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1372514].message }}

Zach Booker

14 years ago

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

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

How I Flipped a Site for $5,999 and How YOU Can Do The Same!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373342].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

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

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373418].message }}

jasonmorgan

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

I'm all about that bass.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373466].message }}

Zach Booker

14 years ago

@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

Thanks

Signature

How I Flipped a Site for $5,999 and How YOU Can Do The Same!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373573].message }}

jasonmorgan

14 years ago

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.

Thanks

Signature

I'm all about that bass.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373618].message }}

Zach Booker

14 years ago

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 **** 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

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

How I Flipped a Site for $5,999 and How YOU Can Do The Same!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373701].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by Zach Booker

.

Anyway enough rambling,

Zach

Don't mind. I liked the ramble.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374027].message }}
- Zach Booker 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  Don't mind. I liked the ramble.
  
  Thanks, it's what I do best.
  
  Zach
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  How I Flipped a Site for $5,999 and How YOU Can Do The Same!
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374353].message }}

jasonmorgan

14 years ago

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.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

I'm all about that bass.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373721].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

Originally Posted by jasonmorgan

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.

You can actually have both world

, just pay more attention and effort to optimize your keywords and also use AIDA to optimize your content for readers!

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374054].message }}

fashionhairem

14 years ago

interesting information interesting post...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373772].message }}

Zach Booker

14 years ago

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

Thanks

Signature

How I Flipped a Site for $5,999 and How YOU Can Do The Same!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1373834].message }}

seo_freak

14 years ago

Do these PR0 high profile site really help with the SERP and PR of the site? I have been trying out some link building for my site, and I have to say I couldn't see much results so far.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374433].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by seo_freak

Do these PR0 high profile site really help with the SERP and PR of the site? I have been trying out some link building for my site, and I have to say I couldn't see much results so far.

How much on page optimization have you done?

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374462].message }}

Zach Booker

14 years ago

I forgot to mention this before...but since this thread is near the top anyway I figured what the hell.

It is ALWAYS a good idea to buy two domains for one website. One to use and one to simply let age.

What I mean is that if you were going after the keyword amazing new dog training book than you'd pick up two domains like:

AmazingNewDogTrainingBook.com
and...
AmazingNewDogTrainingBook.Net

Use the .com and just let the .net sit. If for whatever reason you get sandboxed/de-indexed you will now have a keyword rich aged domain that you can quickly rebuild on.

Zach

Thanks

Signature

How I Flipped a Site for $5,999 and How YOU Can Do The Same!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1374640].message }}

SEO ibiza

14 years ago

Hi all.

there is no doubt in my mind at all that "relevant" backlinks pack more punch. and with the passing of time this appears to be getting even more so..

we've done extensive testing on this too, but I think the salient point to take from Jon's report (which is a couple of years old now as well) is that to a certain extent..

"anchor text on the link makes any link relevant"

just after I posted this lastnight, I noticed Jon is actually a current member in this forum, maybe you should just ask him directly what he thinks the latest state of play is with this.

but blanket statements like

"There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword"

are just not factual.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1376687].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

Hi all.

there is no doubt in my mind at all that "relevant" backlinks pack more punch. and with the passing of time this appears to be getting even more so..

Right No question about that at all

but blanket statements like

"There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword"

are just not factual.

Bingo!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1377533].message }}

dburk

14 years ago

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

...we've done extensive testing on this too, but I think the salient point to take from Jon's report (which is a couple of years old now as well) is that to a certain extent..

"anchor text on the link makes any link relevant"

Hi SEO ibiza,

I totally agree with Jon's conclusion regarding this.

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

but blanket statements like

"There is no such thing as an irrelevant backlink that has helped a page rank for a targeted keyword"

are just not factual.

Yes, well if we can just find an example that demonstrates my assertion to be false, I will happily retract my statement. Do you have one?

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1378010].message }}

Mike Anthony 14 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Yes, well if we can just find an example that demonstrates my assertion to be false, I will happily retract my statement. Do you have one?

You made the postive assertion of an absolute fact. By any basic logical standard the burden of proof is not his its yours. In addition since in this thread we are now discussing Jon's report and you claim to agree with him his assessment is that the refering sites content outside of the anchor text is not something Google puts weight on and that pretty much would disprove your assessment that content or a referring site matters even outside of the anchor text.

So on two counts you have some proof you must provide to SEO ibiza not the other way around
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1378170].message }}

SEO ibiza

14 years ago

Originally Posted by dburk

Hi SEO ibiza,

Yes, well if we can just find an example that demonstrates my assertion to be false, I will happily retract my statement. Do you have one?

lol. you havent been doing this very long have you? ..do you think I would be so confident if I didnt know?

how about this one? Google Search "Schiff senate"

..being as we put it there, would you accept that we know how we did it?

the main reason that is there is because of the footer link at the bottom of this page www.seoibiza.com -if we removed that, it would drop back to second page where it was before we added it.

if you'd like to explain why seoibiza.com is relevant to the subject I'm all ears

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1378221].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Originally Posted by SEO ibiza

if you'd like to explain why seoibiza.com is relevant to the subject I'm all ears

Having heard alot of Don's assertions I can tell you that he will say that anchor text is content. Granted it says nothing about content of the referring site being relevant to the referred to site or backs up his point in the slightest regarding his assertions but in fairness that is his position.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1378388].message }}

fir3d

14 years ago

Google is very hard to understand. I don't think that one method can be shown to work all the time, because their algorithm is so complex and so many factors must be taken into consideration. If you have a backlink from a relevant site it is probably worth more, but it's also hard to tell what is relevant. I link from a clothing site to lets say a direct brand like lacoste would be extremely relevant but how would google know that lacoste and clothing are related theres too many relations to consider.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1378572].message }}

SEO ibiza

14 years ago

Originally Posted by fir3d

Google is very hard to understand. I don't think that one method can be shown to work all the time, because their algorithm is so complex and so many factors must be taken into consideration.

If you have a backlink from a relevant site it is probably worth more, but it's also hard to tell what is relevant.

I link from a clothing site to lets say a direct brand like lacoste would be extremely relevant but how would google know that lacoste and clothing are related theres too many relations to consider.

check out this Link Value Factors | Wiep.net

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1381468].message }}

Mike Anthony

14 years ago

Ibiza - Very interesting link. Really dispels the authoritative statements that have been flying around recently.

In regard to what you were discusiing earlier I think I lean with this view.

Ralph Tegtmeier: "More of an informed guess than a scientifically proven assertion. I'm fairly confident, however, that proximity of keywords and targeted search terms will play a fairly important role soon."

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1381562].message }}

adam westrop

14 years ago

I find D Burk's statement funny. I think probably around 95% of warriors, with prob 80% with top ranking sites will disagree with you.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1377125].message }}

dburk 14 years ago

Originally Posted by adam westrop

I find D Burk's statement funny. I think probably around 95% of warriors, with prob 80% with top ranking sites will disagree with you.

Hi Adam,

Was there anything in particular you found as "funny"? Which part of what I wrote do you think most Warriors disagree with?

By the way, this is a forum where people come to learn. Sometimes information, right or wrong, will spread like wildfire in this forum. Can we assume that widely held beliefs are always correct, and does the popularity of a belief always make it right?

Personally, I'm interested in the truth, regardless of whether it is widely accepted or not. Each of us gets to decide who or what we choose to believe.

Do you think someone who possesses information, the rest of the forum has not heard of should just keep it to themselves? What if something changes, do we stick to our previous knowledge because it once was correct? Do we not have minds that can accept new information, particularly if is it is true? :confused:
- Thanks
Signature

* Get Results - Outsource Your PPC Management |
* Don Burk Advertising & Marketing - www.donburk.com
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1377506].message }}

kkchoon

14 years ago

We speak only from our experience - Authority Domain can easily out weight the relevancy factor...

Will post more related result in next month test.

Thanks

Signature

Powerful Indexer That Makes Your Backlinks Count ==> Nuclear Link Indexer

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1377345].message }}

InternetMarketingIQ

14 years ago

PageRank is NOT site rank. Google doesn't automatically rank sites because they have PageRank. Do NOT use PageRank as an indicator of SiteRank.

Google will always return what they believe is the best match for the Phrase being searched. And PageRank doesn't necessarily play into this.

Thanks

Signature

Internet Marketing IQâ„¢

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1378212].message }}

dagaul101

13 years ago

Chances are it's still a PR 0 until the next Panda algorithm, but Google are not against links, just have to build them naturally so it comes as no surprise that the odd site would outrank other authority sites as the algorithm is far from perfect

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4391402].message }}

PR 0 site Ahead of Authority sites

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?