7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
7 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Does Google Really Not Realize That Some Backlinks Are Irrelevant?

by Brad Spencer
6 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Hey I was wondering...

I've seen a lot of backlinking products for high PR sites. The "skeptic" in me has always wondered why Google hasn't evolved to see that a link to a site on internet marketing that is located on a dating site...probably isn't great for the viewer?

Does anyone know what would happen if Google changed it's algorithm to say "hey this doesn't make sense" for these types of irrelevant backlinks?

Cheers,

Brad


PS- I'm an SEO novice so this might be a stupid question
#backlinks #google #irrelevant #realize
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    SEO forum

    but for the record some people do believe Google looks at relevant links but mine and other testing indicates if it is a factor it is not an overwhelming one. Put it this way IF I run an internet marketing blog and I say I really like to use Hotels.com why should my vote (which is how Google views the link) not be counted.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2013132].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Brad Spencer
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      SEO forum

      but for the record some people do believe Google looks at relevant links but mine and other testing indicates if it is a factor it is not an overwhelming one. Put it this way IF I run an internet marketing blog and I say I really like to use Hotels.com why should my vote (which is how Google views the link) not be counted.
      Yea I accidently realized this was the main discussion rather than SEO forum...alas...a minor mistake.

      That's an interesting way to look at it...I guess the idea of a "vote" didn't really occur to me...

      See google's ability to contextually read the page (a travel article say to internet marketing seminars with a link to hotels.com is relevant to the page...but a page linking to a health site on a personal finance blog is probably extremely irrelevant...) exists or doesn't exist?

      Cheers,

      Brad
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2013159].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Brad Spencer View Post

        See google's ability to contextually read the page (a travel article say to internet marketing seminars with a link to hotels.com is relevant to the page...but a page linking to a health site on a personal finance blog is probably extremely irrelevant...) exists or doesn't exist?

        Cheers,

        Brad
        You will get some poeple who think that but I haven't seen it. Where do you draw the line anyway? the guy with the health site might have a very related reason to link to personal finance.

        I think a vote is a vote but I have seen some small effects on that kind of relevancy so I would not rule it out entirely. The evidence isn't particularly strong though
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2013220].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
        Exactly.

        G doesn't know what links it has. The only way to know is to check the content. The off-page and on-page factors must go hand in hand. But unfortunately, most people and the SEO kiddies just don't get it.

        I know someone over here mentioned that G doesn't ignore CNN or ESPN if you've a link over there.

        True... provided that the link that's in the page has relevant content with the targeted niche site. If content doesn't match semantically, most likely G just treats this as a usual link with some PR juice. It's not a power link. That's all.

        So, it's good to put the idea of semantic relationship into SEO campaign. G stresses a lot in this. It doesn't collect this data for no purpose.

        Note --

        I'm referring to the relevancy of individual content page, not the whole site. For example, if you own a health site, and you've a back link in the health column of... let's say... New York Times site. Then you've a powerful link.


        Hardi
        Signature
        http://www.facebook.com/Hardi.Wijaya.IV
        One of my associates' services...
        Over-Deliver 2000+ SEO Friendly, Guaranteed 80 to 100 Percent Retention, Real Human Time Watched Global Views to Youtube Video Within 72 Hrs
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2013257].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by Brad Spencer View Post

    The "skeptic" in me has always wondered why Google hasn't evolved to see that a link to a site on internet marketing that is located on a dating site...probably isn't great for the viewer?
    It has... for the top X percent. Here's what happens, in a nutshell.

    You start up your website. The search engines say "oh boy, a new website, there are twelve million of those every day" and run a series of small and fast tests on your site.

    If people actually give a toss about your site, you move up into a new "band" of relevance where they're willing to invest a few more seconds of computer time on figuring out where you should rank, and they run some slightly more complicated tests. As your site becomes more and more popular, they run more and more complex and refined tests on it.

    So on that random piece of crap dating website, the link to a random piece of crap IM website isn't being examined for relevance because nobody cares. When either website becomes popular, the search engines will start caring about relevance.

    But until then, they're not going to waste processor cycles on it, because it's complicated and time-consuming.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2013259].message }}

Trending Topics