homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.21.187.131
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
Re: 'Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone'
John Carpenter




msg:774534
 9:45 pm on Jun 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

I recently stumbled upon Brett Tabke's article titled "[url=]Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone" ( [webmasterworld.com...] ). There is one thing that I really do not understand:

G) Outbound Links:
From every page, link to one or two high ranking sites under that particular keyword. Use your keyword in the link text (this is ultra important for the future).

Why is that "ultra important for the future"?

 

Liane




msg:774535
 10:10 pm on Jun 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

If you look at the date on his post ... I think the future is now! :)

1) It lends credibility to your site.
2) It is helpful to your readers.
3) It lends credibility to your site.

Trust me, Brett's advice is solid.

Namaste




msg:774536
 12:07 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

more recently, we are seeing growing importance of outbound links. Do a search on hilltop - krishna and you should be able to find teh Google research paper that points to this subject.

Brett and others, is there anything we need to add/subtract to original A-Z plan at this stage?

ramnyc




msg:774537
 9:28 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

If the outbound links are part of an affiliate program, does the impact things?

John Carpenter




msg:774538
 9:37 pm on Jun 12, 2005 (gmt 0)

1) It lends credibility to your site.
2) It is helpful to your readers.
3) It lends credibility to your site.

In my opinion, all of these points are rather debatable (and none really seem to answer my question).

John Carpenter




msg:774539
 12:41 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Is Brett Tabke reading this forum? If you do, a reply from you would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Marketing Guy




msg:774540
 12:50 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

In my opinion, all of these points are rather debatable (and none really seem to answer my question).

Debatable in what respect? The points are fairly straight forward IMO.

The reference to importance was an early indication / suggestion of where the SE market was moving - SE's were taking more factors into account and OBL's is one such factor.

The reason for the importance is that at the time, links > all for SEO, so everyone was link exchaning en masse, and many of these links were completely off topic (and royaling screwing around with Google's plans). So it stands to reason, Google would react to this by taking into account who you link to.

MG

testy




msg:774541
 1:39 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Don't worry too much about this point.

I have a few sites with no outbound links and still see them grow at a faster rate.

vabtz




msg:774542
 2:02 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

out bound links are just one factor and shouldn't be taken out of context.

Hilltop is not the right paper to reference on this, the google paper and the LSI papers are better.

In the LSI paper they go use outbound links to help determine what your page is about. Also it prevents a "dangeling node" penalty. Its clear from reading these and other papers that SE engineers are looking to use information they have, outbound links included, to infer more about your page.

cyberfish




msg:774543
 2:19 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Brett's decalogue advises to link to "high ranking sites"

Most people assume that "high ranking sites" have useful information, which is not always true. In fact most of the time, there exist other sites (sometimes buried in Google) that might have more useful information, and might be more appropriate link targets. It is unfortunate that a page can only benefit if it links to high ranking sites.

It seems to me that most link collections I see attached to web pages are simply links to the top ranking sites google returns. This triggers an endless cycle where these "top" sites keep getting stronger in google not because their content is better but because they acquire more back-links, simply because they are on top of the serps.

"High Ranking" in Google does not always signify "quality".

The advise should be changed. What's useful to a site's visitor is a link to relevant content independent of google ranking. In fact it is more constructive to link to an obscure page not easily found by a simple google search.

Advising everyone to link to "high ranking sites" might not always be constructive.

To qualify the above: I guess I am thinking more about a "advise for a better web", and not about a collection of "tricks" to fool google (although I understand Brett's advise is just that).

vabtz




msg:774544
 2:31 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Personally I like to mix it up and do both if possible.

decaff




msg:774545
 3:14 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

Keyword "WEB" ... get it!?

sirkei




msg:774546
 3:24 pm on Jun 13, 2005 (gmt 0)

It seems to me that most link collections I see attached to web pages are simply links to the top ranking sites google returns. This triggers an endless cycle where these "top" sites keep getting stronger in google not because their content is better but because they acquire more back-links, simply because they are on top of the serps.

Very good point. Totally agree with you. I run a directory site and every time i was looking for resources to link to, i found that sites with useful informations are buried deep and cant be found in anywhere while all topsites, especially those with the topsites ranking, listed high on the serps.

It cant be avoided that these little information sites cant survive due to the lack of visitors to their sites. Most honest and hardworking webmasters simply give up. I think they did not even receive one good feedback email from visitors to encourage them to keep up the good job due to the lack of traffic.

santip




msg:774547
 5:36 am on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Hi all, I am new here.

I disagree that outbound links to high ranking sites which affect page rank except that high ranking sites also put link to the page (reciprocating link).

Also I disagree with the D)
D) Page Size:
The smaller the better. Keep it under 15k if you can.
The smaller the better. Keep it under 12k if you can.
The smaller the better. Keep it under 10k if you can.
our pages which was more than 200k indexed properly, I see the complete cached page version in google and google give me much refferal to that pages more than regular 20k-50k page in our case.
I am tired to see small article which lots of next or more info links, i like to see the article in full, this kind of articles mostly appears in SEO website.

Regards,

Reid




msg:774548
 5:57 am on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think the importance of linking to high ranking sites is this:

If you are SEOing for a certain keyword then you want to be 'in the game' for that keyword. So you link to some sites that are ranking for that keyword (for whatever reason) and this puts you on the playing feild for that word or phrase.

smaller is better - absolutely true
you may be indexed and you may be getting traffic for that large page but how many people are hitting the back button because it takes too long to load?

southernrob




msg:774549
 6:45 am on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

I found the original article well thought out and very interesting. However it seems to me that at the moment Google likes long urls stuffed with keywords. www.keyword.com/keyword-keyword/keywords_are_king.html comes up well.
Rob

MathsIsFun




msg:774550
 8:37 am on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Yes, it will be sad indeed if people stop linking to the many small yet wonderful sites.

I used to say "the web is great - a little guy who makes cool t-shirts can now compete against the big outlets". I didn't forsee that muscle could "buy" PR and hence all the traffic.

Running an education website, I link to sites that I think will be useful to visitors. That's all - no consideration of size or PR. And I simply hope people will do the same with my site.

ruserious




msg:774551
 8:58 am on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

> I used to say "the web is great - a little guy who
> makes cool t-shirts can now compete against the big
> outlets". I didn't forsee that muscle could "buy" PR
> and hence all the traffic.

Well that is not the problem of PR. This power law is inherent in things that scale beyond a certain size. <snip>

If there was no PR, you would still have very uneven popularity...

[edited by: ciml at 12:19 pm (utc) on June 14, 2005]
[edit reason] Sorry, no blogs please. [/edit]

vabtz




msg:774552
 12:03 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Big pages do work sometimes. But in my experience the smaller pages do well when I have competition.

I don't know about URL keywork stuffing yet.

as an aside if I read: "XXXXX is king" one more time I am going to scream.

LostOne




msg:774553
 12:13 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

"as an aside if I read: "XXXXX is king" one more time I am going to scream."

It's true content is king BUT you need to rank for good keyphrases/words first from my experience. I kinda disagreed with the content thing from time to time, but once some of the major keywords I target reached the first page of Google all sorts of pages with content reached high spots instead of being buried on page ten.

oddsod




msg:774554
 12:18 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

vabtz, you promised one scream :)

trillianjedi




msg:774555
 12:53 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

is there anything we need to add/subtract to original A-Z plan at this stage?

At any stage you could add or subtract to it. Google is a moving target. But not if you're in it for the long haul.

That 26 point guide is solid, was solid and is likely to always be solid.

All of my sites are based on it, and they all get to #1 in google, eventually, including some ultra-competitive term sites I have up there right now.

It just plain works, and it works because the premise behind it is based on static concepts and basic rules of marketing, rather than the moving goalposts of a changing algorithm.

Read between the lines - it's not all about algo's.

Use your keyword in the link text (this is ultra important for the future).

Why is that "ultra important for the future"?

I think Brett was probably thinking Hilltop, but there is also a heavy flavour of basic marketing principle/psychology in it. If you're building a content site, it's good advice, even if you ignore the "...important for the future" comment.

TJ

santip




msg:774556
 12:57 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Reid:
>smaller is better - absolutely true
>you may be indexed and you may be getting traffic for that large page but how many people are hitting the back button because it takes too long to load?

Oh, I didn't know that, how can we disable 'back button' in visitor browser?

Brett Tabke, why don't you split your very good article 'Successful Site in 12 Months with Google Alone' in [searchengineworld.com...] to be three or four pieces? the articles size (more than 35K) not consistent with your suggestion to us!

Did you had ever recieve the email say: size does not matter!

Brett_Tabke




msg:774557
 2:15 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

inbound anchor text = you are what people say you are.
outbound anchor text = you are what YOU say you are.

Themes, trust rank, hilltop, etal aka: hubs and authorities. As we've seen from the recent disclosures about Googles patents and just how much obscure info they include in their algo, it is clear that EVERYTHING on your page goes into ranking it.

PR hording is a sure sign of an over optimized site.

Consider an average page. What is the ratio of pr in to pr out? If you know that factor, you can design an algo tweak that will all but eliminate pr hording/aggressive link/seo'd sites. aka: I believe this was the heart and soul of the florida update. My only big question is if this dial is also the filter known as the sandbox.

longen




msg:774558
 2:35 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Recently, in the Google serps, i clicked on the "Similiar Pages" for an authority site, and found my site listed.
I assume it was a result of similiar content and/or my outbound link to the authority site.

John Carpenter




msg:774559
 6:35 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, if someone says that something is "ultra important for the future" (note the word "ultra"), one would expect there is a major reason to do that. I have yet to see one such reason (this thread brought only some minor and rather questionable ones).

vabtz




msg:774560
 7:27 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

My reason is that I had a large site fully indexed.
Most of my article pages had no outbound links.
THey have alomost no inbounds either.

The articles on this site only exist for search engines so my site users rarely look at them.

I went through and added outbound links to them. I only added outbounds to sites in the top 100 for the KW's I was looking for. Also I checked manually to ensure the content was acceptable for users.

In between me finishing adding outbounds google reindexed them.
The ones with outbounds moved dramatically up the serps.
------------

I kept this up and the pattern continued.

-----------

To me this showed that outbounds do matter.
On page Anchor text matters ( as we already know ).

I could do more testing but I am lazy.

karmov




msg:774561
 8:04 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

Well, if someone says that something is "ultra important for the future" (note the word "ultra"), one would expect there is a major reason to do that.

I believe this was the heart and soul of the florida update. My only big question is if this dial is also the filter known as the sandbox.

If Brett is right about this issue being the heart and soul of the florida update or he's right about his speculation over the filter formely known as sandbox, then we have the reason for using the word "ultra".

In either case, even if it were no longer "ultra" important, it's still a significant variable not to be ignored.

LostOne




msg:774562
 11:09 pm on Jun 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

John:

Doesn't hurt to try it. I've been doing it for 4-5 months and doing quite well with the terms used, but I have worked on backlinks at the same time. I never questioned why--just did it. Hard to say if it has had an effect.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved