19 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
19 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Linking out: Yay or nay?

by TLondon
16 replies
  • SEO
    • |
Quick one.

Linking externally with dofollow to reputable sites like Wikipedia and similar ONLY (single or multiple links).

#1. Hurts your site/page
#2. Doesn't affect anything
#3. Benefits your site/page

Which one is it?

Thanks!
#linking #nay #yay
  • Profile picture of the author SEOWizard417
    I would go with options 2 and 3. Linking out to an authority site isn't going to hurt your site. You may be losing a bit of link juice, but one or two links is negligible.

    In all likelihood, it will have very little affect. It can help though, and generally it will provide a better user experience, assuming you link out to something meaningful and useful.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394290].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Josh Mayers
    Originally Posted by TLondon View Post

    Quick one.

    Linking externally with dofollow to reputable sites like Wikipedia and similar ONLY (single or multiple links).

    #1. Hurts your site/page
    #2. Doesn't affect anything
    #3. Benefits your site/page

    Which one is it?

    Thanks!
    Hey TLondon,

    I would say that linking with dofollow links will NOT hurt your site in the SERPS. In fact, I do believe that it will only help your site. Especially if you are linking from reputable sites like you say you are.

    Not all backlinks are the same, but having a few backlinks from very reputable sites with a lot of traffic can be very powerful in getting your site exposure and ranking high in the SERPS. In the past, I have always gotten excellent results if I only had a couple backlinks from a .gov and .edu site.

    Hope this helps!

    -Josh
    Signature
    Learn How This Simple System Can Generate UNLIMITED $25, $100 and $300 Payments Directly Into Your CashApp Account Using Nothing But Your Cellphone. . .
    ~ www.CashAppFreedom.com ~
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394370].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mkgg
    Originally Posted by TLondon View Post

    Quick one.

    Linking externally with dofollow to reputable sites like Wikipedia and similar ONLY (single or multiple links).

    #1. Hurts your site/page
    #2. Doesn't affect anything
    #3. Benefits your site/page

    Which one is it?

    Thanks!
    Depends on the page. You can't generalize it.

    I have seen ranking improvement when reducing the number of OBL (good sites of course) and other times it doesn't matter. Does your page has anything to do with that wiki article or you are simply linking out for making it look natural ?.

    It all comes down to relevance, just because you link to wiki doesn't automatically make your site/page reputable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seopratyush
    My Point of view different from you guys!!! As because, only thinking of getting quality links from authoritative website would be spam activity unless you link it in a natural way and keeping in mind the business theme. Its very essential to stick your business offerings and link with similar websites who are closely related with your business. This will be more beneficial.

    I choose all three options depending upon the kind of website you have.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394450].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLondon
    Okay, I guess Warriors are very used to marketers using all kinds of spammy techniques...

    Let me clarify guys: the content is good quality, all relevant, linking to relevant Wikipedia or .gov, .edu, sometimes even higher PR .com, .net, .org pages that are established and are known as reputable websites. Again - all relevant content, and linking there for a reason (for example, some terminology in Wikipedia, or medical research study on PubMed, etc.)

    With that being said, can anybody say for sure whether this will hurt my page, benefit my page or do nothing?

    If it will hurt, I'll just use nofollow, but if it will benefit, then obviously I'll link naturally. Regardless, I will link to that page anyway because my readers will benefit from the link (however, Google might not know this), but of course a boost in ranking would be a good benefit.

    Any SEO experts know for sure?

    Thanks!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394515].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seopratyush
      Well in that case, I would suggest not to use no follow tag.

      Originally Posted by TLondon View Post

      Okay, I guess Warriors are very used to marketers using all kinds of spammy techniques...

      Let me clarify guys: the content is good quality, all relevant, linking to relevant Wikipedia or .gov, .edu, sometimes even higher PR .com, .net, .org pages that are established and are known as reputable websites. Again - all relevant content, and linking there for a reason (for example, some terminology in Wikipedia, or medical research study on PubMed, etc.)

      With that being said, can anybody say for sure whether this will hurt my page, benefit my page or do nothing?

      If it will hurt, I'll just use nofollow, but if it will benefit, then obviously I'll link naturally. Regardless, I will link to that page anyway because my readers will benefit from the link (however, Google might not know this).

      Any SEO experts know for sure?

      Thanks!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394527].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mkgg
      Originally Posted by TLondon View Post

      Okay, I guess Warriors are very used to marketers using all kinds of spammy techniques...

      Let me clarify guys: the content is good quality, all relevant, linking to relevant Wikipedia or .gov, .edu, sometimes even higher PR .com, .net, .org pages that are established and are known as reputable websites. Again - all relevant content, and linking there for a reason (for example, some terminology in Wikipedia, or medical research study on PubMed, etc.)

      With that being said, can anybody say for sure whether this will hurt my page, benefit my page or do nothing?

      If it will hurt, I'll just use nofollow, but if it will benefit, then obviously I'll link naturally. Regardless, I will link to that page anyway because my readers will benefit from the link (however, Google might not know this), but of course a boost in ranking would be a good benefit.

      Any SEO experts know for sure?

      Thanks!
      You lose PR juice when you link out doesn't matter which site it is, however the difference between linking out to wikipedia and any other site is the neighborhood. Linking out to good domains puts you in the good sites neighborhood same as like getting links from good quality domains. People do that for their crappy sites or PBNs to make it look natural as everyone links to wikipedia so the PBN comes off as natural because it is linking to wikipedia. How much it helps ? who knows its definitely up for a case study.

      I don't link out to any authority site, heck i have stopped linking out to my own sister site which is a necessity as the actual transaction takes place there (i just use a redirect page which nofollow/noindex tags ) simply because i have noticed the pages with less or no OBLs rank higher and easier, it was nofollow links by the way. It makes sense because it follows PR logic.

      So if you are trying to rank a page don't link out or if it is necessary, use nofollow tag. If your site is crappy(built for ranking) then just write an article and link out to wikipedia or put a useful resource section.

      I only do-follow sites that are relevant to my own niche, i won't give a dofollow link to wikipedia ever, already hate that they rank at the top for every goddamn keyword even when some of the wiki articles are just outright crappy.

      Hope that explains and helps.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9395666].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLondon
        Originally Posted by mkgg View Post

        You lose PR juice when you link out doesn't matter which site it is, however the difference between linking out to wikipedia and any other site is the neighborhood. Linking out to good domains puts you in the good sites neighborhood same as like getting links from good quality domains. People do that for their crappy sites or PBNs to make it look natural as everyone links to wikipedia so the PBN comes off as natural because it is linking to wikipedia. How much it helps ? who knows its definitely up for a case study.

        I don't link out to any authority site, heck i have stopped linking out to my own sister site which is a necessity as the actual transaction takes place there (i just use a redirect page which nofollow/noindex tags ) simply because i have noticed the pages with less or no OBLs rank higher and easier, it was nofollow links by the way. It makes sense because it follows PR logic.

        So if you are trying to rank a page don't link out or if it is necessary, use nofollow tag. If your site is crappy(built for ranking) then just write an article and link out to wikipedia or put a useful resource section.

        I only do-follow sites that are relevant to my own niche, i won't give a dofollow link to wikipedia ever, already hate that they rank at the top for every goddamn keyword even when some of the wiki articles are just outright crappy.

        Hope that explains and helps.
        Thanks for your response.

        Yeah, following logic is definitely the way to go, but unfortunately, Google doesn't always agree with our logic, does it?

        Regardless, I definitely agree with you, to an extent. I brought up Wikipedia just as an example of a high authority website, but what I meant is high authority sites in general, which could be VERY closely related to your niche. Say, if you're blog or eCom or whatnot is about education, and you link out with dofollow to university's .gov, .edu, or even just .co.uk site which has PR8. Or, like I previously said, medical research studies article and you link out to PubMed or similar.

        Does that make sense, or not really?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9396652].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dr los3
    Only because i've been interested in the question myself recently ill share with you what i've learned and see the mistakes many of my fellow webmasters make.

    If you're going to link out externally, make sure the first contextual link on your piece of content is an internal one, the following contextual link don't suck as much juice out if any at all. I found that the first contextual link is the most powerful. This may be a hypothetical theory, but its what the rule i follow.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394542].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLondon
      Originally Posted by Dr los3 View Post

      Only because i've been interested in the question myself recently ill share with you what i've learned and see the mistakes many of my fellow webmasters make.

      If you're going to link out externally, make sure the first contextual link on your piece of content is an internal one, the following contextual link don't suck as much juice out if any at all. I found that the first contextual link is the most powerful. This may be a hypothetical theory, but its what the rule i follow.
      Interesting. I've read about including keywords at the top of the page, but didn't see anything in terms of links. If the KWs work that way, then I guess it would make sense that links would also work like this. I might try that, thank you!

      With that being said, I have 2 questions for you:

      1) Did you find any supporting evidence to this, aside from your own sites?
      2) So you do agree that even linking out to relevant pages with high authority like Wikipedia would still suck out some link juice?       Thus, we need to think twice about linking out even to high authority relevant sites. Is that correct?

      I remember reading somewhere that Google's primary aim is to increase user experience by 'showing' them the sites that are linking to other relevant sites. If that would be the case, then following this theory would mean Google would rank higher those pages that are linking out to relevant sites. I won't be able to find the source tho, don't remember.

      ^ Any thoughts on this?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394583].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    If you link to another domain/page that's extremely relevant to your own webpage the external page your linking to will trail in the SERPs. That's basically how I rank multiple domain/pages for the exact same keyword.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394568].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLondon
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      If you link to another domain/page that's extremely relevant to your own webpage the external page your linking to will trail in the SERPs. That's basically how I rank multiple domain/pages for the exact same keyword.
      Let me see if I understand this, yukon.

      Hypothetically, if I write about Ebola, and link to Wikipedia's Ebola page, then - in theory - my page would trail after Wikipedia's page in SERPs. So, in this instance, my page would still be below Wikipedia's, but Wiki's high authority would "pull" my page behind itself over all other Ebola sites that are NOT linking to Wiki.

      Is that correct?

      Also, if it is, did you really notice that to be the case? Any SEO pros covered this in an article or something?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394591].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by TLondon View Post

        Let me see if I understand this, yukon.

        Hypothetically, if I write about Ebola, and link to Wikipedia's Ebola page, then - in theory - my page would trail after Wikipedia's page in SERPs. So, in this instance, my page would still be below Wikipedia's, but Wiki's high authority would "pull" my page behind itself over all other Ebola sites that are NOT linking to Wiki.

        Is that correct?
        That's correct, your site/page would trail the Wikipedia page in Google SERPs, but the one way link on Wikipedia would need to be a followed link.

        You can test this with your own domains, rank a page on domain #1, link from the ranked page on domain #1 to a relevant page on domain #2. Both pages are targeting the same subject. The page on domain #2 should trail the ranked page on domain #1. Obviously both pages are unique.

        Keep in mind that competition can get between your page & the Wikipedia page (example) in Google SERPs depending how strong competition is, still, your page would trail the ranked page, it might be on page one or page two, again depends on competition & how strong the SEO is for your own page. Either way having a link on the 1st ranked page is a huge advantage that can boost the 2nd domain/page to the top of the SERPs for your keyword.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9394659].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLondon
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          That's correct, your site/page would trail the Wikipedia page in Google SERPs, but the one way link on Wikipedia would need to be a followed link.

          You can test this with your own domains, rank a page on domain #1, link from the ranked page on domain #1 to a relevant page on domain #2. Both pages are targeting the same subject. The page on domain #2 should trail the ranked page on domain #1. Obviously both pages are unique.

          Keep in mind that competition can get between your page & the Wikipedia page (example) in Google SERPs depending how strong competition is, still, your page would trail the ranked page, it might be on page one or page two, again depends on competition & how strong the SEO is for your own page. Either way having a link on the 1st ranked page is a huge advantage that can boost the 2nd domain/page to the top of the SERPs for your keyword.
          Pretty much the theory I was following before, and ranked one of my sites this way ACCIDENTALLY, which is when I noticed. Thought that it might be BS or I just got lucky, but the fact that you rank yours this way just kind of confirms it.

          Thanks yukon; I appreciate your response and analytical approach.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9396636].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Laubster
    No one has EVER released a definite case study saying it does or does not help you rank better. Everything is based on Google's Trust Rank and the concept of being one degree of separation from a high trust domain. Except an OBL does not connect you to the high trust domain like an inbound link does, so there's no real proof that it helps.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9395200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Profit-smart
    Assuming the page your linking from is relevant, it at worst is of no benefit, and more than likely is of benefit (Further contextualizing your site).
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9396778].message }}

Trending Topics