12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
12 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Setting up quality blog question

by dracoboar
10 replies
Hello,

I am making a few quality blogs that will point to my money site

They will have 100% original quality content.

I plan on using the blogroll to hit most of my primary keywords (say 3) and intermix that with links other relevant authority sites.

My question is this.

If i have resource box style links in every post that also point to my money site will the google response be

A - original quality content we dont care if he constantly points to his money site

or

B - constantly points to his ecommerce site so we should ignore this blog even though it is quality content
?


any advise would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
#blog #quality #question #setting
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by dracoboar View Post

    If i have resource box style links in every post that also point to my money site will the google response be

    A - original quality content we dont care if he constantly points to his money site

    or

    B - constantly points to his ecommerce site so we should ignore this blog even though it is quality content
    Google's response will be an automated function of their algorithm, not a volitional/intentional one.

    Nobody can answer your question with 100% certainty.

    However, in general, although there can be no downside from what you're suggesting, there's a kind of "law of diminishing returns" to the benefit of the number of backlinks a site gets from any specific page. I'm not suggesting that 10 backlinks are no better than 1 backlink, but I think by the time you have a few backlinks from it, adding additional ones will really be of very small additional value.

    That's certainly always been the consensus of opinion about this subject of the authors of the SEO textbooks I've read.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4197750].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      I have links in my sidebar. The sidebar, and thus the links, appear in every post I make.

      The thing to focus on is whether the links benefit your readers.

      My feeling is that having links in my sidebar to my main sites/content help readers by making sure they are always only one click away from the main stuff they may want to reach.

      While all those links may not carry the same weight they would if they were coming from 100 different sites rather than 100 pages on your own site, I have not seen anything to suggest they would be harmful to your rankings. That is, they may not boost your rankings, but they will also not be detrimental to them.

      Most search engines try to deliver their users the best, most relevant content. Their goal is to put the searcher first and foremost. If you put the needs of your readers first and foremost, and design your site to be of maximum use and navigability to them, you will be aligning with the same things the search engines are trying to do, which is better than acting in opposition to what the search engines are doing.
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4197799].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dracoboar
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      Google's response will be an automated function of their algorithm, not a volitional/intentional one.

      Nobody can answer your question with 100% certainty.

      However, in general, although there can be no downside from what you're suggesting, there's a kind of "law of diminishing returns" to the benefit of the number of backlinks a site gets from any specific page. I'm not suggesting that 10 backlinks are no better than 1 backlink, but I think by the time you have a few backlinks from it, adding additional ones will really be of very small additional value.

      That's certainly always been the consensus of opinion about this subject of the authors of the SEO textbooks I've read.


      Alexa,

      The links on my blogroll would be static, but the links in the resource box would change with each new post / page.

      This should help avoid the diminishing returns correct?

      ty again for all your assistance
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4197856].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author schttrj
        Originally Posted by dracoboar View Post

        Alexa,

        The links on my blogroll would be static, but the links in the resource box would change with each new post / page.

        This should help avoid the diminishing returns correct?

        ty again for all your assistance
        Well, I am really not sure but I would suggest naturalness as is proposed by most SEO experts. So, don't include the link in every post that is. Just include it in every 2 posts, maybe.

        And try to include the link in between the content. That is much better according to me.

        One more thing, use deep linking. Remember the word 'natural' in every case.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4198284].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by dracoboar View Post

        This should help avoid the diminishing returns correct?
        It may do. It strikes me that what matters is that there's no downside anyway (there might just, to some extent, be a "lack of upside").

        By "diminishing returns", I didn't mean to imply that additional links can have a negative value, simply that the additional value of each reduces as their number increases.

        I don't understand how it could actually be better to include them in only half the posts, as Ron suggests. This certainly doesn't accord in any way with anything I've ever read on the subject and is really a whole new theory of SEO for which I can't, myself, conceive of any justification. Sorry.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4198351].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ProvenViral
    You will want unique content if you are setting up a quality blog.

    The term you're using is QUALITY - meaning people want to read what you have to write every time you make a post. Don't post up junk that people already know ... post relevant and good content.
    Signature
    "Things may come to those who wait, but only things left by those who hustle". - Abraham Lincoln
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4197883].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dracoboar
      Originally Posted by ProvenViral View Post

      You will want unique content if you are setting up a quality blog.

      The term you're using is QUALITY - meaning people want to read what you have to write every time you make a post. Don't post up junk that people already know ... post relevant and good content.
      Content will be 100% unique and as relevant as I can make it. Most posts will be guides and how to type articles.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4198012].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
    What I tend to do is mixup my onsite anchor text, in alignment with my primary, secondary and long tail keywords.

    As in ....

    Main link - dog training (header)
    Secondary link - training dogs (side menu or blog roll etc)
    Long tail variations - how to train dogs, puppy training, dog leash training etc etc etc (typically in the footer)

    I mix it up, but I always ensure my links are relational. Most often my links go to categories, not individual articles, unless I decide otherwise.

    Id say there's little point in simply "repeating" onsite links, just for the sake of building links.
    Signature

    BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4198042].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dracoboar
      Originally Posted by ramone_johnny View Post


      Id say there's little point in simply "repeating" onsite links, just for the sake of building links.

      John,
      I ask this question as I want to be crystal clear before I commit resources to this project. If I understand what you are saying adding resource box type links in each new post will be of little value? Even if I rotate the resource box?

      My thoughts are that since a new post is a new page the links (except blogroll links) would be new links on a new page and thus not have diminishing returns?

      Am I incorrect in that assumption?


      Again thank you all for taking the tim to share your wisdom
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4198151].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author John Romaine
        Originally Posted by dracoboar View Post

        John,
        I ask this question as I want to be crystal clear before I commit resources to this project. If I understand what you are saying adding resource box type links in each new post will be of little value? Even if I rotate the resource box?

        My thoughts are that since a new post is a new page the links (except blogroll links) would be new links on a new page and thus not have diminishing returns?

        Am I incorrect in that assumption?


        Again thank you all for taking the tim to share your wisdom
        Im not quite sure I understand your question, and its a little hard to help without knowing for sure what you're doing, however Ill give my thoughts. Im sure others will chip in too.

        If you refer back to my previous post, youll notice that I mention using onsite links pointing to categories, rather than individual pages. The best way to do this is to firstly categorize your keywords, then of course your site structure. You should always do this before you begin site design. The benefits of doing so, allow you to have a better overall structure onsite, which helps in terms of backlinking later - both onsite links, and offsite.

        I would suggest diversifying your linking structure using (as recommended above) primary, secondary and long tail keywords across your site. Another thing I do, is often Ill cross link my articles (onsite) using of course relevant anchor text. I do this by simply "choosing words" that are within the actual articles themselves, and point those to other articles

        I could be wrong, but I feel that Google preferences sites that have a well organised internal linking structure - which of course is "link heavy" as in, plenty of cross and internal linking onsite. Dont go crazy though.

        If you get this right, there are a number of benefits that come with good onsite linking...

        1. Google seems to index more pages of the site, quicker. As pages are "interlinked" they are easier for the bots to find, crawl and index. Have you ever had a site with 200 pages and wondered why on earth only 5 were indexed? This might be why.

        2. You give yourself the potential to rank using keyword rich linked navigation. Ive seen this happen with no backlinks or site promotion.

        3. You are more likely to be rewarded with a decent PR. I follow the same principles onsite and have found most of my sites get a PR4 or 5.

        Theres probably more, but I've really got to get some work done here.....

        Take a look at Google's SEO/Webmaster guide below. From memory, I think they cover *some* of what youre asking.

        http://www.google.com/webmasters/doc...rter-guide.pdf

        Last tip - keep it simple. Dont overthink it.

        Have a look at my most recent site to get a better (visual) idea of what I suggested above - start an seo business

        Best of luck
        Signature

        BS free SEO services, training and advice - SEO Point

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4209630].message }}

Trending Topics