Some thoughts about Google & Links
- SEO |
I was thinking about Google and links earlier today and I came out with some thoughts that might be true ... or total utopia. Anyhow, I want to know your opinion about those.
If I were Google, the following things would definitely rise a "red" flag for me:
1) Your site has hundreds of links, but no social signals - For REAL and useful sites it's much likely impossible. However, if you doing some heavy blackhat or using private network then it's quite possible scenario. This is probably somewhat WTF to Google.
2) Traffic vs links. Again, you have lot of high "PR" and valuable links, but you are not getting traffic directly from them. Isn't that weird?Real links usually provide some (at least few hits a year) traffic as well. If I were Google, I would mark those links as low quality.
3) http vs WWW. If you have a real site then people link out do you naturally, right? Let's say you have a site called http: // widgets.com. Now, if people link to you naturally then there are still some people (probably 5-10%) who add www. to the beginning of your link. It's not logical when you have 1k links and they are all starting with http : //
4) Not linking out. Let's say you have a "tech" magazine. You are posting quite frequently about the newest gadgets, releases and so on.. BUT you never link out. You have none links pointing OUT. Isn't that weird? You write a 2000+ word post and you don't link out to any facts, resources, proofs bla bla? I doubt that people take you seriously enough, I think google won't take you seriously either.
What's your thoughts about this one?
If I were Google, the following things would definitely rise a "red" flag for me:
1) Your site has hundreds of links, but no social signals - For REAL and useful sites it's much likely impossible. However, if you doing some heavy blackhat or using private network then it's quite possible scenario. This is probably somewhat WTF to Google.
2) Traffic vs links. Again, you have lot of high "PR" and valuable links, but you are not getting traffic directly from them. Isn't that weird?Real links usually provide some (at least few hits a year) traffic as well. If I were Google, I would mark those links as low quality.
3) http vs WWW. If you have a real site then people link out do you naturally, right? Let's say you have a site called http: // widgets.com. Now, if people link to you naturally then there are still some people (probably 5-10%) who add www. to the beginning of your link. It's not logical when you have 1k links and they are all starting with http : //
4) Not linking out. Let's say you have a "tech" magazine. You are posting quite frequently about the newest gadgets, releases and so on.. BUT you never link out. You have none links pointing OUT. Isn't that weird? You write a 2000+ word post and you don't link out to any facts, resources, proofs bla bla? I doubt that people take you seriously enough, I think google won't take you seriously either.
What's your thoughts about this one?
If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.