Anchor text over optimization question!

by 15 replies
17
I have a site that every page on the site target different keyword and the homepage target nothing.

so if my site is : www.mysite.com
and inner pages are:
www.mysite.com/keyword1 , www.mysite.com/keyword2 ..... ,,,,,,, www.mysite.com/keyword10

and i have 200 backlinks are divided as the following :

100 backlinks target homepage with general anchors , site name and raw url
100 backlinks target 10 inner page , every page have 10 backlinks and all backlinks are keywords optimized ... i mean

inner link 1 "www.mysite.com/keyword1" get 10 backlinks all with only one keyword "keyword1"

and so on every inner page have the same format.

** if you count every anchors % for every page to the whole site it will be % 5 ( 10 backlinks / 200 )

so is this anchor over optimization ?
#search engine optimization #anchor #optimization #question #text
  • Yes. Don't build same anchor to inner pages. Make it look natural
  • morc3x @ Thanks for response but if this backlinks are few numbers ( 10- 20 ) and all of them are high quality links ?
  • What do you consider high quality? (:
    I'd still use contextual anchor text.

    Let me show you an example:
    if your keyword is "rob a bank"

    I wouldn't use 10x "rob a bank" as anchor

    I'd use:

    1x "how to rob a bank"
    1x "rob a bank and don't get caught"

    and so on.
  • I suggest you to use the anchor text in this way:

    -main keywords (40%)
    -longtails keywords (30%)
    -raw url (30%)

    In this way you will avoid over optimization penalty and you will also get your anchor text ranked for traffic.
    • [1] reply
    • See heres the problem,
      Both of you just pulled those numbers and that advice out of thin air. And stated it like fact. Like you had conducted some testing on it.

      The guy has said 10 backlinks to inner pages, and you hopped on with, no thats over optimized and heres a % formula to work it out. But no one knows those numbers. And no one knows at what number of inbound links does this filter kick in. Would it be as low as 10 links? I doubt it.

      By definition, if it was to be that granular. 1 single link with anchor to a page might be considered over optimized, and then penalized for being so? Nah it just doesnt add up.

      I'd say your fairly safe with so few links (10) set up like that. But it certainly would not hurt to add a little mix to it, just to be safe. No one knows the exact numbers so the best advice is to be logical about it.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • Usage of different keyword is very important. It is called as LSI keyword. The perfect example was given by @morc3x before-
    It will look more natural. If your URL is yourdomain.com, use yourdomain as anchor text some times.
  • when i say high quality i mean high pr blog posts with unique handmade content and guest posts .

    ok i will use anchors with guest posts and raw urls with all other backlinks types
    20% keywords + 80% Raw url

    ** question >> do i have to use generic keywords or raw url enough or i have to use general and lsi keywords too?
    • [1] reply
    • It's not about using the same anchor text over and over.
      Never has been, never will be. I have no idea why people
      continue to misquote google, or not even quote them at
      all. Over optimized is using words like world's best, the
      most stupendous, etc. And it's not even about that, really.
      It's about how and where.

      Funny thing. Google has said things about forum sigs. So,
      anyone who talks bloated nonsense about varying anchor text, and has
      a sig link here...well, what can you say? They are speaking out
      of both sides of their mouths.

      What is anchor text nonsense? Stating emphatically that if you
      use the same text, google will slap you. Hardly.

      It's not about what. It's where and how. Always has been, always
      will.

      But see, people think they can hide, so they come up with varying
      anchor text. As if that actually matters. As if google is that stupid.

      Mix it up? Well certainly. That's only logical. Rarely do I even remember
      what anchor text I used last when building links...I don't need to.

      Are you going to tell me that the people in this thread who have
      hundreds of posts, and hence hundreds of the same friggin anchor
      text link, are going around making other links with different text to
      offset that?!?!?!? Well, they'd better! Cuz if not, then WTF?

      I can just imagine that some people feel the need to make 4 different
      anchor text links for each time they post on the wf....make sense?
      Of course not.

      Paul
      • [1] reply
  • @paulgl Are you saying that using the same keyword repeatedly is not a big deal? Look at the first two charts in this post:
    Penguin Analysis: SEO Isn't Dead, But You Need to Act Smarter | Microsite Masters

    Over the last year and a half sites with aggressively built anchor text (60% of links) have been hit by the various Google updates. My sites included back when I built links like an idiot would.
    • [1] reply
    • It's funny. Microsite Masters put out that article right after Penguin, and since then everyone has just taken it as fact. Before that article 99.9999999% of IM'ers had never heard of Microsite Masters, but everyone just jumped all over that with no question.

      Just to piss in everyone's Cheerios a little bit, I have been ranking sites that have used the same anchor text for anywhere from 70-90% of the backlinks.

      There is more to it than just the percentages of anchor text. If you are building crappy backlinks, you can try mixing up the percentages any way you want. Your backlinks still suck.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • If you want to look natural then you are going to want to have more anchor text that isn't the exact keyword you are targeting. I would use lots of raw urls and variations of your keyword as anchor text.
  • I think my thread go on other direction but any thanks all for your advices
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed