A backlink from a new page on CNN or Wikipedia won't help much in the short term?

15 replies
  • SEO
  • |
So, I was discussing with a friend of mine who knows a little about SEO and my friend claimed that a do-follow backlink from a new page on CNN or Wikipedia to your money site would do little to boost your money site in the short term, despite the excellent trust and authority of CNN and Wikipedia.

So let's say CNN posts a new article and in that article there is a do-follow backlink to your money site. Because it is a new article, this new article will appear on a new page on CNN. According to my friend, because this is a new page on CNN, there are very few external links that point to this new page (or new article). And because there are few external links that point to this new page, this will not be an authoritative page yet (ie. the page will have a PA of 1).

My friend went on to say, when other websites posts links to this new article/page on CNN, then the page will achieve higher authority (ie. a higher PA) and then the backlink from this article on CNN will help to boost your money site. However, until this new page on CNN acquires more external links that point to it, the backlink to your money site from this new page on CNN will do little to boost your website.

Is this correct? What is your experience with a backlink from a new page from an authoritative website such as CNN or Wikipedia (or some other well known authoritative website)?
#backlink #cnn #page #short #term #wikipedia
Avatar of Unregistered
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by alphabanter View Post

    So, I was discussing with a friend of mine who knows a little about SEO and my friend claimed that a do-follow backlink from a new page on CNN or Wikipedia to your money site would do little to boost your money site in the short term, despite the excellent trust and authority of CNN and Wikipedia.

    So let's say CNN posts a new article and in that article there is a do-follow backlink to your money site. Because it is a new article, this new article will appear on a new page on CNN. According to my friend, because this is a new page on CNN, there are very few external links that point to this new page (or new article). And because there are few external links that point to this new page, this will not be an authoritative page yet (ie. the page will have a PA of 1).

    My friend went on to say, when other websites posts links to this new article/page on CNN, then the page will achieve higher authority (ie. a higher PA) and then the backlink from this article on CNN will help to boost your money site. However, until this new page on CNN acquires more external links that point to it, the backlink to your money site from this new page on CNN will do little to boost your website.

    Is this correct? What is your experience with a backlink from a new page from an authoritative website such as CNN or Wikipedia (or some other well known authoritative website)?

    He is partially correct.

    First of all, PA means nothing. It is not a ranking factor and no search engine on the planet looks at it.

    Second, he has it backwards. If CNN posts a new article, it is likely to show up on their home page or on one of their prominent category pages. At that time, the article page will be getting a very strong link from this page, making it a strong page itself. This is assuming, of course, that we are talking about a real article on CNN and not some user created blog like you find on sites like Forbes and Huffington Post.

    Over time, that article is going to not only drop off the first page, but it is going to get buried pretty deep within the site. It's no longer going to benefit from the authority of the home page (or see very, very little benefit).

    While it was on the front page, if it managed to collect some external links, that will help it to be a stronger page long-term, but again it is not benefiting much from the fact that it is on CNN.com.

    So short-term it is more likely to provide a boost than long-term.

    Hope that makes sense.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11517708].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author alphabanter
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      He is partially correct.

      First of all, PA means nothing. It is not a ranking factor and no search engine on the planet looks at it.

      Second, he has it backwards. If CNN posts a new article, it is likely to show up on their home page or on one of their prominent category pages. At that time, the article page will be getting a very strong link from this page, making it a strong page itself. This is assuming, of course, that we are talking about a real article on CNN and not some user created blog like you find on sites like Forbes and Huffington Post.

      Over time, that article is going to not only drop off the first page, but it is going to get buried pretty deep within the site. It's no longer going to benefit from the authority of the home page (or see very, very little benefit).

      While it was on the front page, if it managed to collect some external links, that will help it to be a stronger page long-term, but again it is not benefiting much from the fact that it is on CNN.com.

      So short-term it is more likely to provide a boost than long-term.

      Hope that makes sense.
      Thanks. What you say makes sense. Any internal links from the authoritative website pointing to the new page would boost the authority of the new page.

      So I would guess that a new page on an authoritative website, that has internal links pointing to it, would still be trusted by Google to a certain extent (orphaned new pages would be an exception but my guess is orphaned new pages should be rare).
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518020].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ravi Talwar
    Yes it won't help you out in this discussion
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11517844].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author newgt
    Well. Actually, this helps you in the short term for initial boost and direct traffic rather than the long term. But no one can say it never helps in the long term.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518038].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MadelynnKuphal
    What do you mean by short term. Because if you get backlink from these website for few days it doesn't help you. You should try to get permanent backlink from these website which will boost your ranking and traffic.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518061].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author DABK
      Read post 2 of this thread.


      Originally Posted by MadelynnKuphal View Post

      What do you mean by short term. Because if you get backlink from these website for few days it doesn't help you. You should try to get permanent backlink from these website which will boost your ranking and traffic.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518085].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Enfusia
    I rank sites without me doing any backlinking at all.


    I was hit hard by Penguin. I had over 300 sites above the fold on the SERP's.


    Woke up one morning and pow, $over 12K mo gone.


    So, now, no backlinks.


    It takes about 9 to 18 mos for them to rank well enough to make a few hundred per site, but then they start to take off.



    Just my two cents.
    Signature
    Free eBook =>
    The Secret To Success In Any Business
    Yes, Any Business!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518096].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author giselle li
    I just know the backlink recently, but from your question, it really help me to figure how I can think.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518178].message }}
  • Originally Posted by alphabanter View Post

    So, I was discussing with a friend of mine who knows a little about SEO and my friend claimed that a do-follow backlink from a new page on CNN or Wikipedia to your money site would do little to boost your money site in the short term, despite the excellent trust and authority of CNN and Wikipedia.

    So let's say CNN posts a new article and in that article there is a do-follow backlink to your money site. Because it is a new article, this new article will appear on a new page on CNN. According to my friend, because this is a new page on CNN, there are very few external links that point to this new page (or new article). And because there are few external links that point to this new page, this will not be an authoritative page yet (ie. the page will have a PA of 1).

    My friend went on to say, when other websites posts links to this new article/page on CNN, then the page will achieve higher authority (ie. a higher PA) and then the backlink from this article on CNN will help to boost your money site. However, until this new page on CNN acquires more external links that point to it, the backlink to your money site from this new page on CNN will do little to boost your website.

    Is this correct? What is your experience with a backlink from a new page from an authoritative website such as CNN or Wikipedia (or some other well known authoritative website)?
    Not really correct.

    It's not like PA is the only factor.

    And besides...

    ... internal links to the page may help contribute to the authority flowing to your page as well.

    So...

    It's totally possible to create a new page on an authoritative site, and manually create internal links on high PA pages of that site linking back to the new page you've created.

    If you know how, that is...

    Other than that, it also depends on the authority site in question.

    Getting backlinks from new pages on even Google-owned sites can give huge boosts because of Google's vested interests in their properties...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518675].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author insubh
    PA is not a factor. The authority will pass from wikis or news sites like; cnn will definitely help you in long term result. Especially google loves news site linking.

    In the end, all it's depends upon;
    where your backlinks placed,
    the article is written by an expert author or not,
    quality of the article,
    relevancy of article with your site URL and many other related things.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11518902].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Amarjeet Verma
    Yup, It would not help too much, You should check Neil Patel new test about backlinks.

    According to my knowledge, Rich Anchor Text backlink from a relevant website would help in boosting rank.
    Signature

    See How I Rank This Website No#1 on Google With Only 3 Exact Match Anchor Text Backlinks Packers and Movers in Pune - One of the Backlink is Here in My Signature!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Shahana Khanom
    In brief, based on that debate, it would seem that a do-follow backlink to your money site from a new CNN or Wikipedia page would do little in the brief term to increase your money site, despite CNN and Wikipedia's great confidence and power.

    So let's say CNN is posting a new article and there's a do-follow backlink to your money site in that article. This new article will appear on a new CNN page because it's a new article. There are very few external links pointing to this new page because this is a new page on CNN. And since there are few external links pointing to this new site, this is not going to be an authoritative website (i.e. the website will have a PA of 1).

    Ultimately, when other websites post links to this new article/page on CNN, the page will gain greater power (i.e. a greater PA) and then the backlink from this article on CNN will help increase your money site. However, the backlink to your money site from this new CNN page will do little to increase your website until this new CNN page acquires more external links pointing to it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11520792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by Shahana Khanom View Post

      In brief, based on that debate, it would seem that a do-follow backlink to your money site from a new CNN or Wikipedia page would do little in the brief term to increase your money site, despite CNN and Wikipedia's great confidence and power.

      So let's say CNN is posting a new article and there's a do-follow backlink to your money site in that article. This new article will appear on a new CNN page because it's a new article. There are very few external links pointing to this new page because this is a new page on CNN. And since there are few external links pointing to this new site, this is not going to be an authoritative website (i.e. the website will have a PA of 1).

      Ultimately, when other websites post links to this new article/page on CNN, the page will gain greater power (i.e. a greater PA) and then the backlink from this article on CNN will help increase your money site. However, the backlink to your money site from this new CNN page will do little to increase your website until this new CNN page acquires more external links pointing to it.

      Basically everything you said is absolutely wrong. Read my response above. You have it backwards.

      And PA means absolutely nothing.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11521029].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author alphabanter
      Originally Posted by Shahana Khanom View Post

      In brief, based on that debate, it would seem that a do-follow backlink to your money site from a new CNN or Wikipedia page would do little in the brief term to increase your money site, despite CNN and Wikipedia's great confidence and power.

      So let's say CNN is posting a new article and there's a do-follow backlink to your money site in that article. This new article will appear on a new CNN page because it's a new article. There are very few external links pointing to this new page because this is a new page on CNN. And since there are few external links pointing to this new site, this is not going to be an authoritative website (i.e. the website will have a PA of 1).

      Ultimately, when other websites post links to this new article/page on CNN, the page will gain greater power (i.e. a greater PA) and then the backlink from this article on CNN will help increase your money site. However, the backlink to your money site from this new CNN page will do little to increase your website until this new CNN page acquires more external links pointing to it.
      Hi, thanks for your answer. I did a lot of separate reading myself, and what some of the other posters pointed out with respect to internal links is probably the correct answer. Usually, a new page will have internal do-follow links from the website pointing at the new page. These internal do-follow links provide link juice to the new page.

      You are right though that if this new page doesn't have any internal do-follow links pointing to it, it will rely on external links for link juice.

      This article from Ahrefs explains it the best: https://ahrefs.com/blog/domain-rating/. There is a section in this article where they talk about internal links and orphaned pages:

      If you create an orphan page (that doesn't have any internal links) on a high‐DR domain, it won't magically rank in Google just because it's on a high‐DR domain.

      But if you place enough internal links to this page from other pages of this high‐DR website, it might very well start moving up in rankings.

      In fact, Kyle Roof (Co‐founder and Lead SEO at hvseo.co) has carried out this exact experiment. He created a bunch of orphan pages on domains with different DR scores. And he didn't see any effect that raw DR score would have on the ranking position of an orphan page...
      Just skip to this section in the Ahrefs article. I consider Ahrefs to be a pretty good source on this so what Ahrefs is saying is consistent with what the other posters here are also saying about internal links.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11522360].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author maraby
    Yes it won't help you out in this discussion
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11521071].message }}
Avatar of Unregistered

Trending Topics