Anyone know, vs. non context relevant backlinks, how much better context relevant backlinks are?

15 replies
  • SEO
  • |
I have been told that even vs. higher pr non context relevants that context relevant lower pr backlinks are worth more to google.

Anyone have any idea of how much more relatively from experience? Guess I'll find out for myself in due course through trial and improvement.

I'm just looking on frontpage of google and one of my comp., position 5, has only 37 backlinks and checking the backlinks they are on random (non context relevant) profile backlinks.

So I'm thinking this is gonna be pretty easy to beat right?

I did a blast of loads of blog commenting (are these worth more than profile? I'm guessing yes) on context relevant (prob did like 30+ at least so will see what sticks) and am waiting for them to trickle through (1st one came through today).
#backlinks #context #relevant
  • Profile picture of the author Tyler Abernethy
    It also depends on how many other outbound links are on the page that is linking to you (link juice is divided by the total number of outlinks)

    but if there are a lot of outlinks + noncontext relevant = google


    Tyler Abernethy
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3600305].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author raviv
    I have been told that even vs. higher pr non context relevants that context relevant lower pr backlinks are worth more to google.

    Anyone have any idea of how much more relatively from experience? Guess I'll find out for myself in due course through trial and improvement.

    All the major search engines have the concept of topical hubs as part of their algorithm. Definitely contextual relevant links will be more logical and appropriate.

    A car mechanic getting a backlink from a high PR bridal gown site is great but imagine the plight of the users. Someone interested in cars would not be keen on visiting a wedding site.

    When it comes to backlinks, the emphasis seems to be on high PR links. But links also bring in traffic - read humans who expect good resources a site would link similar to the content they are reading on that site.


    I'm just looking on frontpage of google and one of my comp., position 5, has only 37 backlinks and checking the backlinks they are on random (non context relevant) profile backlinks.

    So I'm thinking this is gonna be pretty easy to beat right?

    I did a blast of loads of blog commenting (are these worth more than profile? I'm guessing yes) on context relevant (prob did like 30+ at least so will see what sticks) and am waiting for them to trickle through (1st one came through today).

    All links created are not equal. Generally editorial links have the highest value where in your article in your niche is so good that someone links to it naturally from their site contextually with appropriate anchor text.

    Best
    Raviv
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3600789].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Hi steadypay,

      It is not quite as simple as you seem to imagine. While a irrelevant backlink has no direct influence on webpage ranking, it can indirectly influence a page ranking using correctly applied techniques.

      So it is true that an irrelevant backlink seems to have absolutely no direct ranking benefit, it still passes link juice which, when properly channeled through a subsequent relevant link, will influence rankings. That is one of the reasons that proper internal link structure is so effective in influencing your webpage's ranking.

      You must consider the above mentioned influence when analyzing your competition else your conclusions may be invalid.

      Furthermore, many folks seem to not understand how Google determines backlink relevance, they often confuse website topic with page topic. Page topic is what Google uses and anchortext is the most influential signal in backlink relevance.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3601883].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author dp40oz
        Originally Posted by dburk View Post

        So it is true that an irrelevant backlink seems to have absolutely no direct ranking benefit, it still passes link juice which, when properly channeled through a subsequent relevant link, will influence rankings. That is one of the reasons that proper internal link structure is so effective in influencing your webpage's ranking
        So are you saying if i have a page about iPods and I make a blog comment on a bridal page it's irrelevant and won't count for much, if anything. But if I have my same iPod page and I comment on the same bridal page but instead that comment points to a buffer site that then points to my iPod page, that then my iPod page now receives the juice from the bridal comment? Not sure if that's what you meant there.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3696384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BenoitT
    Originally Posted by steadypay View Post

    I have been told that even vs. higher pr non context relevants that context relevant lower pr backlinks are worth more to google.

    Anyone have any idea of how much more relatively from experience? Guess I'll find out for myself in due course through trial and improvement.

    I'm just looking on frontpage of google and one of my comp., position 5, has only 37 backlinks and checking the backlinks they are on random (non context relevant) profile backlinks.

    So I'm thinking this is gonna be pretty easy to beat right?

    I did a blast of loads of blog commenting (are these worth more than profile? I'm guessing yes) on context relevant (prob did like 30+ at least so will see what sticks) and am waiting for them to trickle through (1st one came through today).
    I'll give you a long answer short: do both. The high PR is useful and the low PR relevant one is also useful.
    Signature

    Benoit Tremblay

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3602263].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author keepclicking
      Even though the discussions above did not give me a clear answer they did enlighten me somewhat. I think the last one of making a long answer short is to do both was a good summation of all of the above. That is the approach I will take.
      Thanks to all who contributed.
      Jerry Jones
      RC Controlled
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3695059].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fanimal
    Blog comments are usually worth nothing. Especially from pages with 30+ blog comments as those are considered link farms by google.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697185].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author steadypay
      Originally Posted by fanimal View Post

      Blog comments are usually worth nothing. Especially from pages with 30+ blog comments as those are considered link farms by google.

      I call bullcrap on that.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697505].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Google.me
        Originally Posted by steadypay View Post

        I call bullcrap on that.
        I second that one
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697524].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author mrtaxiservice
        yes relevent result matter but you must get a popular page from google. Where the combination of both thing will effect for good ranking
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697558].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Google.me
      Originally Posted by fanimal View Post

      Blog comments are usually worth nothing. Especially from pages with 30+ blog comments as those are considered link farms by google.
      not really - look at how many comments or post on some of the threads in here and see if your comment is relevant. Depends if you understand seo
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697531].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author steadypay
    I'm glad there are people like this around doing SEO...it means less competition
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697553].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Tim Wallace
    Backlinks from relevant context is just one aspect, the quality of these link source, the number of external links on that link source and even the age of the link sources have influence to keywords ranking.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Vexo
    They are exactly the same there was a case study on this forum a while back
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3697668].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by Vexo View Post

      They are exactly the same there was a case study on this forum a while back
      Do you mean the one that demonstrated that Google does not use "website topic" as a signal of relevance? The one that beautifully illustrated that all signals of relevance are "page" level, not "site" level?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3698856].message }}

Trending Topics