| 1:37 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
However, given a recent trend in Google's SERPs I suggest that this may be more effort than it is worth and that attempting to stop the passing of your PR could be detrimental to your google rankings.
Good luck though.
| 1:43 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
easier is to bring them to a local page like you indicate and setup a message overthere.
YOU WILL BE DIRECTED TO AN EXTERNAL PAGE AT BLABLABLA.
WE ARE NOT LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INFORMATION.
with a meta refresh of 10 seconds.
and put a meta no index no follow in that page or even better...but all these pages in a directory called outgoinglinks and ban that directory in your robots.txt
| 1:57 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Thank you tenerifejim,
but what do you mean by "given a recent trend in Google's SERPs"?
| 2:02 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>with a meta refresh of 10 seconds.
Why I should the visitor to wait?
| 3:14 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|"given a recent trend in Google's SERPs" |
Etar, it seems that PR leak is not a problem these days, in the sense of the effect that it has on your serps. In fact, outgoing links appear to be benefitting many sites, (Directories).
Whether the outgoing links cause G to see you as a "hub", "authority", or "expert", they sure don't hurt. The preferred form seems to be using them with natural placement across various pages using anchor text that is also natural, (and making sure you have good internal navigation, of course, so that your own pages are part of the hub). Particular "link" pages, where all the outgoing links are gathered with no other real text, pass little value on to the linked-to site, so if you actually like the site you're linking to, and you want to help them out, don't put them on a "links" page.
In short, what you're planning might not be necessary.
| 3:21 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think Stefan has explained my comments probably better than I would. From my experience I totally agree with him.
| 3:38 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> Does this way work?
If it does, you might engage in a wee bit o' prayer that the various sites whihc link to you don't start eyeballing the same path you're thinking about hiking.
| 3:47 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I also aggree that out going links doesn't hurt you. I would add that I would limit my outgoing links to what I need to have, and each link be related to the subject of that webpage.
You can go well beyond this, but I don't think it is to your advantage. At some point there is a cut off as to what is good for your website and where you can lose a little.
| 4:26 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Stefan & tenerifejim
>PR leak is not a problem these days...
How so? as I know the PR is very important to increase the site's visitors.
| 4:31 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>I also aggree that out going links doesn't hurt you...
In regard to the google algorithm( PR(A) = (1-d)+d*(PR(B)/C(B)) ), this is not true, the outgoing link affect the PR.
| 4:49 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Outgoing links do affect the site PR, but many of the suggested methods will still cause the PR leak.
In fact, doing things like linking to a page that google is blocked from by robots.txt will just become dead ends for PR. You are simply throwing it away.
If you are intent on being a PR hog, and you are willing to suffer the downside in your ranking because of this, then the best way to do this is with JS links. Google will still follow the URL, but they will not pass the PR.
It is in Google's best interest to support sites that link out. Their whole world lives off links. Following links is what googlebot is all about, because that is what the web is all about.
One way to reduce the amount of PR leak you have is to increase the number of internal links on that page. If you only have 2 links total and one is outbound, you are losing half the outgoing PR of that page. If you have 19 internal links you are only losing 5%.
| 5:02 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I saw a site that used an individual link out page for each outbound link and if you scrolled down past about 18 inches of whitespace they had their site map on each page. So basically they had divided their page rank into about 100 links - 1 external and 99 (or whatever) internal.
| 6:10 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I consider it highly likely that internal and external links are counted separately. In this case, PR hogging is impossible.
| 6:35 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Guys, I am little confused after all these posts, many here did not advice me to do that, why? I do not see a clear reason why you do not advice me to do that since the outgoing links will -for sure- decrease PR!
| 6:44 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I do not see a clear reason why you do not advice me to do that since the outgoing links will -for sure- decrease PR! |
Sure, but who actually pays any attention to PR?
You site visitors will not be gauging your site in terms of googles pagerank, they will make their own minds up.
What's far more important is how your site performs in the SERPS, for which pagerank has very little effect in the overall algorithm these days.
| 6:46 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> I consider it highly likely that internal and external links are counted separately. In this case, PR hogging is impossible.
it would be nice to if you would offer some evidence to back this up. Is this a "gut feeling"?
I have a number of directories - I have linked to many brand new sites and seen their PR increase by a predicatable amount dependent on how many links the page has on it - not an exact science, mind you.
But something along the lines of PR 0 -> PR 4, or PR 3 -> PR 5.
I am too lazy to type out the whole analysis, but I can only say that I have evidence that strongly refutes your statement.
| 6:59 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>What's far more important is how your site performs in the SERPS...
Excuse me guys! What is the different between SERPS and Page Rank! and what is the SERPS? and how the SERPS get more visitors?!
| 7:09 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
> What is the different between SERPS and Page Rank! and what is the SERPS? and how the SERPS get more visitors
| 8:30 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
PageRank is only one of the factors involved in determining the relevance of a page. If it was the only factor, then Google's home page would always come up #1 for every search, because there would be no relevence factors involved.
Pagerank is still the most important factor, but with hundreds of factors being taken into account, all factors are minor factors.
| 9:35 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"the outgoing links will -for sure- decrease PR!"
You are misunderstanding PR. Linking off a page does not decrease its PR. It stays exactly the same. What happens NEXT can raise your PR. That means if you link to a page that links back to one of your pages, that is better for you than linking to a page that doesn't link to your pages. The most clear example is when you link to your own internal pages, obviously they almost always link to some of your other internal pages. This is better for your PR than just linking to the NASA main page.
Likewise, throwing away a link to a non-existent internal page is completely worthless.
You give and receive pagerank. You don't "keep" it. You can give it to yourself, and you can give it to someone who gives you a little too.
| 9:41 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have a similar 'problem' with pageranks:
I have a website that has about 100 outgoing links (only on one page) and about 50 ingoing links. All these outgoing (and ingoing) links are to 'review' pages (sorry don't know the right word for it; I mean the pages that give for example 50 links to only companies specialized in suits).
Understanding from this forum, you can say that my 100 outgoing links are useless for the referral sites themselves and is 'costing' me pagerank. Could anyone please tell if it is useful for me to forbid the robot to come on my linkspage? (inbound links are to my main site)
Thanx in advance :)
PS my link page is <snip>
[edited by: Marcia at 1:15 am (utc) on May 17, 2004]
[edit reason] No URLs please. [/edit]
| 10:05 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I find it amazing how some people sometimes focus on one aspect of SEO and decide it's the key to nirvana.
Yes, external links reduce the PR that you could otherwise recycle internally, but if you're really worried about PR then you probably have LOTS of content pages and only a few links pages. So you're only talking about a few % difference and if you really care about that then you're never going to amount to much.
Secondly, the focus on PR is more than 6 months out of date and misses the whole recent debate on the importance of linking to others and whether your site gets counted as an authority site or not. i.e. You're not just out of tune, but out of touch as well.
The whole world of SEO has moved on and got more sophisticated. Some of the changs are subtle with really quite elegant implications.
| 10:24 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We don't focus on only one part of SEO, but only are focusing on one part at a time! And on this page it happens to be PR. That doesn't mean it the key to nirvana, but only a little aspect of it...
But if the whole world of SEO has moved on, the basic assumption is that everybody knows everything already. And that is certainly not the case. Posting on forums that are socalled out of date, makes you wonder why you even read it (and certainly makes you wonder why even posting on it).
Anyway, no need for useless discussions:
Thanks mars9820 for giving a comment I certainly can use!
| 10:51 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think what olderscot try to say is that focus on PR is not that important anymore and most important is to see how people link to you and what anchor text they use.
Personally I think it is not good to block the flow of PR to external pages.
As in many languages there is a saying:
It's the one hand that washes the other.
By giving PR to someone else that person will increase his PR and therefore his link back to you will be more valuable.
| 10:53 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
PR is just one thing of many, but it is many times more important now than six months ago. PR was almost meaningless six months ago, while it is top ten important now.
People who don't understand the value of PR think it is either more important or less important than it actually is, or can be. Both black and white views are wrong.
"Most important" is another worthless way to look at things. A $100 bill may be the most important, but it is dumb to then just ignore $50s, $20s, $10 and even dimes and nickels.
Proper use of the PR you have at your own disposal is more important now than it has been in at least 18 months.
| 10:56 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I consider it highly likely that internal and external links are counted separately. In this case, PR hogging is impossible. |
I have more pressing concerns than analysising Google's Pagerank algo. Gut feeling is part of it. 20+ years experience of programming, etc. is part of it, and observations (but not experiments) another part.
If I were designing a search engine algo based heavily on PR (as was true in the early days) I would not punish sites that link out. All this talk of recycling PR is missing the point. If internal and external links are counted together then linking out DOES have a cost in terms of PR. However, if they are counted separately then this need not be true. Given that the PR algo was designed and implemented in the days when Google knew what they were doing, it is therefore likely (but not certain) that internal and external links are counted separately.
Patrick, you said that you saw a predictable increase in PR. My proposition, if I understand you correctly, does not contradict this. If you were to say that you linked out and saw a predictable loss of PR, then depending on the details, this might be evidence that contradicts my proposition.
| 11:25 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Maybe my example will help muddy the waters a bit.
I have about 95 high-content pages, and two "links" pages. Virtually all my outgoing links are from the two links pages.
My content pages all link to one another as determined by relevance to the visitors, and very seldom link to outside sites. All pages link back to my index.html main page, a menu pointing to all else.
Since page-rank is determined by Page, and not by Site, I presume that my contents pages are increasing the PR of one another, and of my main page.
Since my two links pages are almost entirely outgoing links, I presume that it all leaks out and don't much care about that. I'm not trying to boost the PR of my links pages, just the PR for my main and content pages.
I make sure Google etc. can spider my outgoing links. I never cloak them to prevent so called "PR-leak".
IF there is leakage or dilution, only the outgoing links suffer from it.
Am I correct in these assumptions? Is this a more or less ideal situation for my site?
Thanks in advance. - Larry
| 11:46 pm on May 16, 2004 (gmt 0)|
the overall pagerank of your website decreases with the outgoing links. Even if they are on one page.
You can use this calculator (see below) as an example:
For example if you put all the inbound pagerank on the overall pagerank is: 3.0
If you add add 4 outbound links horizontally on C for example the overall pagerank decreases to: 1,22!
This shows that overall pagerank drops (also on A and B)
Anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong :)
No tools please. See Google News charter [webmasterworld.com].
[edited by: DaveAtIFG at 12:17 am (utc) on May 17, 2004]
| 12:18 am on May 17, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Larryhat, your situation is close to ideal for pagerank purposes, but that depends on how you link to those link pages. One link from your main page is different than if all your pages link to them. Likewise one link from a sitemap would be different than one link from your main/best page. If the link pages only have one or a few links to them, then you aren't sending a meaningful amount of PR off your domain. At the same time, you also have to consider what you are getting back. If you get some links back because you link to some other domains, that represents a gain and offsets the loss of you linking out. If you send out ten links and get ten links back of equal strength, this represents a loss of nothing.
| This 78 message thread spans 3 pages: 78 (  2 3 ) > > |