Non-relvent backlinks?

Testing and testing, hands on and work your way out is the best way to know how Google works.

There are some basic principle, and links is part of the most important factor in ranking!

Although what you say about "backlinks that get clicked are counted" is the "ideal" way of counting links, however Google won't know it!

What Google will do is count all links they "trust" and give certain link juice to those trusted links, and rank whatever page that had the highest value!

Your blog traffic goes up is not because of organic traffic, but traffic from those authority blogs, and your comment must be eye catching!

This is pure white hat method, and very powerful if you done it right . However, if you missed the backlink building formula, it may take you longer time to see massive traffic...

Kok Choon

Wow, two product marketers pointing people's eyes down....

Hi Mike,

I have provided evidence, but some folks can't see the forest for all the trees in the way. I'm sure you know, nothing is ever proven to be absolutely true in science, it can only be ruled out by evidence. Every search you have ever performed on Google provides evidence. There is no need to conduct an experiment to obtain data. We are swimming in data provided by each and every SERP.

The evidence is abundant that links from irrelevant pages provide little or no direct benefit in SERP ranking. If it did, then we would see the top SERP listings dominated by a handful of web pages with high PageRank. Fortunately for search engine users, we find the most relevant pages are ranked higher regardless of PageRank.

While we can indirectly benefit from backlinks from irrelevant pages, we must provide a relevant intermediary page that will pass this influence which is weighted by the PageRank of the linking page.

I suspect the reason you have discarded backlinks that "don't allow anchor text" is because you have learned that without making the page relevant to your keyword, there is little influence in getting ranked for that keyword. That is an astute observation.

The fundamental technologies used by search engines is not a secret. The information that search engines try to keep secret is the precise methods they use to weight various factors within their algorithm. If you study the well documented methods used by search engines it will remove much of the mysteriousness that seems to foster wild speculation and ridiculous theories.

People often get confused by the relevance of the "topic of a website". Search engines do not even try to determine the "topic of a website". Instead they look at the web in which the page is included. That "web" is made up of the pages that are linked to and from the target page. The relevance of that web has a significant influence on your target page's relevancy score. That is why having a lot of relevant pages link to yours has such a beneficial effect on your SERP ranking.

The goal of the search engines is the same as the users, to find the most relevant pages. And when there are many pages of equal relevance, they are sorted in order of importance determined by the search engines algorithm. The relevance and size of the web in which the page exists determines the importance, and in part the relevance of that page.

The importance of a page is only a consideration when there are other equally relevant pages in the index. All you need to outrank an opponent is a higher relevancy score.

It requires more effort, in my opinion, to try to outrank a competitor with backlinks from irrelevant pages. Sure, you can use a relevant intermediary page to pass influence, but it is greatly diminished from the benefit of a relevant direct link. If done properly it can still be an effective strategy, however many folks do not understand the proper method to exploit this and are left wondering why they are not benefiting as much as expected.

I am confident in my own analysis of the abundant evidence that is available to us all in the readily available SERPs. I'm willing to share some of my insights with the members of this forum. I have no obligation to provide you with all of my research methods and I believe you are wrong to attack my methods which you know nothing about.

I have tried to discuss this with you, but you seem intent on trying to discredit me. You have offered absolutely no evidence of anything that contradicts my analysis. You have only speculated as to my methods and criticized your own speculations. You can choose to believe whatever you like and feel free to tell lies if you must, just leave me out of it.

Why not bring some evidence of your own to this discussion? I suspect it is because you have none and are simply attacking me because that is all you can do when you are not in possession of any facts on the subject.

There is no need to conduct an experiment since we have abundant data, thanks to Google, available at our fingertips. Why not dive in and analyze this data and share with us your own conclusions?

I have searched for evidence of a page that has ranked high for a keyword based on backlinks from irrelevant pages. I have found none. I have asked the members of this forum if they could provide an example of a page that ranked well based exclusively on backlinks from irrelevant pages and not even a single example has been produced.

I think it is safe to say that if it is extremely rare if not impossible to rank a page for a keyword based on backlinks from irrelevant pages. While we can never prove something absolutely true in science, we can rule out the likeliness of ranking a page for a keyword based on backlinks from irrelevant pages by examining the ample evidence provided by the SERPs we examine every day.