| 9:15 pm on Jan 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Adding linkages will not increase the overall PR of your site, but will change the distribution of PR to the individual pages.
I suspect any PR increase for the five pages would be minor. :)
| 9:24 pm on Jan 17, 2006 (gmt 0)|
There should be no dead ends. Every page should have at least one (plain html) link on it otherwise the PR of the page is wasted (i.e. it is not fed back to the remainder of the site).
| 6:47 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|... and was deliberatley not using site wide links as an experiment to see if they would hold their PR during jagger and now bigdaddy. |
A page will not loose PR when linking out to other pages. As mentioned before, at least one link is necessary from each page to prevent PR waste. However, the pagerank of a page will be shared between the pages it links too and the more links on a page, the more the PR value distributed via each link will be dilluted.
Be carefull with many index pages, sitemaps etc. I have done some simulations with page rank distributions in a site with different internal linking schemes and I found it astonishing how many PR a sitemap consumes when it is linked to by all pages, often more than 15%. This is waste of PR in most cases because sitemaps and index directories won't show up in most queries because of lack of relevance.
| 7:16 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just to give a bit more background on it. This is a commerce site, the five pages the other 95 are linking to are the Product descriptions for each product.
I am not so concerned about the PR, but more so 95 PR5 pages boosting the relevance of the product pages for their targeted keyword.
Lets say I have a page about blue widgets, and it sits at #11 on google. I point 50 pages within the same domain, that have a PR5 and are all relevant to each other linking to the general blue widgets page that I want in the top 10 for blue widgets.
In an instance like that and IF the content was good etc.. will that increase my chances of getting on page 1?
I may not be explaining myself right, but I speculate if it was an external (not from the same domain) link, it would hold higher values for my situation. I always hear a lot about linking and it seems that its mostly about good PR links from other domains, but strong PR pages within a domain linking to a small group of pages is something that I want to learn more about because i have another domain that has a couple of hundred PR5 and PR6 subpages that I would consider doing this too as well.
Thank you everyone for posting, I appreciate it greatlly.
| 8:04 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure I get the question, but PR doesn't care about internal or external. if you point more links at five pages, those five pages will get higher PR and will rank better. Nothing mysterious about it.
| 10:21 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think its likely that your PR5 pages have that PR because they are the next stage down the tree from the PR6 home page. That is almost automatic, and so the pages won't necessarily rank well.
To make them more important I would try and make a steeper triangle - home page, leads to 5 key pages, leads to the other 95 product pages, leads to more pages below each product page (reviews, feedback, related articles etc)
That way you clearly identify in your structure the 5 most important pages. You also make sure you have an text link back to the level above - something like:
home >> blue widgets >> blue widget number 2
That way users know where they are, and Google has the required link back up the structure.
You will probably lose the PR5 rating on the 95 pages if you put them further down the structure (they'll drop to PR4), but the 5 important pages will be clearly identified as important, and should rank better.
Thats if I understood you correctly. And it's only my opinion, which I could generalise as "build a logical structure" for your content, and add as much useful content on the lower levels as you possibly can to boost the higher levels.
| 10:41 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Solid advice and duly noted.
"I think its likely that your PR5 pages have that PR because they are the next stage down the tree from the PR6 home page. That is almost automatic, and so the pages won't necessarily rank well."
Are there other possible things that may cause this to occur, besides that? It could be likley, but I have other webistes with a similar link structure and they do not get that kind of PR from the "next stage down" concept. In fact I have some site that have a stronger PR on subpages as opposed to the home page, and the home page initially had a higher PR.
| 11:46 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
None of that is the point. The PR of a page is just the result of a math equation resulting from the quality and the quantity of the PR of pages linking to that page.
You want a page to have higher PR, aim links at it. Aim links at it from pages with higher PR. Remove uneccessary links from pages that link to the page you want to boost.
| 11:59 pm on Jan 18, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"None of that is the point. The PR of a page is just the result of a math equation resulting from the quality and the quantity of the PR of pages linking to that page.
You want a page to have higher PR, aim links at it. Aim links at it from pages with higher PR. Remove uneccessary links from pages that link to the page you want to boost."
Steve, in my initial post, I was asking more so about how it would affect rankings for target keywords. You are right, it is not the point. I am only trying to learn about linking, and what affects it has on PR. My primary concern has everything to do with content and I feel that because i put so much effort on content, that I may be lacking in proper link structure. I just want to learn more about optimal linking within the same domain for end users and google.
| 12:17 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I spent a bunch of time trying to understand how PR works. After a lot of study I figured out that there is an awful lot of misinformation floating around.
Here are a couple links to pages that I found especially helpful:
(Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with either of these sites.)
| 7:56 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
OK. The pagerank paper linked above says this.
"If you give outbound links to other sites then your site's average PR will decrease"
Here is my question.
If I have 10 outbound links on my homepage (which has the highest PR)
Will I be losing more pr than
If I put the same 10 outbound links on a lower PR page?
Another way of asking this would be this.
Would I lose the same percent of PR on either page?
In that case wouldn't I lose less total PR if I put the links on the low PR page than if I put them on the High PR page?
| 9:56 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If you put the 10 outbound links on a lower page, you will lose less PR of the site in general for sure. A clear example of this is that noone will link to you from their home page unless they're paid for it (or mad), but they wil happily throw in a link in some useless "links" page down the bottom of their strucure
| 10:07 am on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Are there other possible things that may cause this to occur, besides that? It could be likley, but I have other webistes with a similar link structure and they do not get that kind of PR from the "next stage down" concept. In fact I have some site that have a stronger PR on subpages as opposed to the home page, and the home page initially had a higher PR. |
I know sites that have stronger "level 2" pages than their "home pages" as well. But this is because in a sense these are the most important pages, and will have external links pointing at them, as well as structure below them that denotes their importance in the site. Often these inbound links are deliberately targeted at these pages.
On the subject of outbound links losing PR, I would like to add that this doesn't mean necessarily losing positions. Linking out to important related sites is a strong strategy in Google. Lots of sites do well as they are seen as useful resources to users, pointing the user at other sites related to their search, but conecting these links to their own content.
What do I mean by this? I mean that linking out reinforces your relevance to the search if it is on target and especially if it is to an important resource, and so boosts your results, even if in theory it loses PR
Think about this - Google wants you to link out, otherwise its whole algorythm would crumble. It won't punish youunless you link out to unrelated rubbish
PR is only one part of the equation.
| 12:14 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|A clear example of this is that noone will link to you from their home page unless they're paid for it (or mad) |
Well, it's not the first time, nor probably the last that I've been called "mad".
| 12:28 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
can I send you my sites to link to please?
| 6:58 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a question that is slightly off topic but it probably doesn't warrant its own thread -
I have a homepage that has 5 links on it going out to other pages within the same domain. In summary, the 5 links are:
Product Category 1
Product Category 2
Product Category 3
Contact Us/About Us
Detailed Ordering Information
We had multiple problems with customers who found us through the 'Detailed Ordering Information' page via Google - so much so that we put a "noindex,nofollow" on it, which removed it from Google. That way, only customers who come through "proper" channels are able to access it.
Am I losing 20% of the PR that the homepage dispenses by linking to one "noindex,nofollow" page out of 5 total? Or does Google give all the home page PR to the 4 "index,follow" pages?
| 8:08 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Am I losing 20% of the PR that the homepage dispenses by linking to one "noindex,nofollow" page out of 5 total? Or does Google give all the home page PR to the 4 "index,follow" pages? |
You are losing definitely PR by using "noindex,nofollow". The nofollow argument tells the spider to not sipder or count the links on that page, so that page is not able anymore to distribute its PR to other pages. The best way is to change it to "noindex,follow", which allows PR distribution FROM the unindexed page to other pages. For PR distribution it doesn't matter if the page is indexed in the search engine or not. I have hunderds of pages with the "noindex,follow" tag that have decent PR (2 to 4) but which I removed from the index to prevent duplicate content penalties.
The next thing you should consider is to use the new rel="nofollow" tag in all the links to the page you want to be removed from the index. This stops PR distribution TO that particular page and should distribute the available PR of the homepage to the 4 remaining visible pages.
With the above mentioned adaptions to your site, most--if not all--of the PR should be distributed amongst the remaining visible pages of your site.
| 8:22 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"I was asking more so about how it would affect rankings for target keywords"
Which again goes back to the simple answer. Yes, linking more to your important pages helps rankings.
| 10:26 pm on Jan 19, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I can't imagine why you'd want to stop users finding your site even if they come through the "improper channel" - wouldn't they then perhaps just head for the home page? Anyway, I guess you know the answer to that one.
Perhaps you could integrate the Detailed Ordering Information into the product pages? Then you wouldn't need the page or the link, but the content might still come up in Google, leading your user instead to an actual product page. Just an idea.
| 1:42 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't want to do the nofollow on links to the pages that give added information to my visitors. Those links add value to my site and are worth giving a "vote".
But I'm wondering if I should put rel="nofollow" in my links to Amazon books. I always list my references at the end of each article and link them to Amazon. Could the nofollow help reduce link leak?
How does it fit into the link code? Would
<a href="http://www.widgets.com" rel="nofollow"> be right?
| 7:29 am on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Would <a href="http://www.widgets.com" rel="nofollow"> be right? |
Yes, that should work. I have used the rel="nofollow" on a number of affiliate links some time now and have seen no negative results in SERPs positions etc. I think it is the use that Google and others intented when they introduced it. An affiliate link is interesting for the visitor, but not for the search engines and the nofollow prevents PR to artifically flow to the www.widgets.com website. I link to www.widgets.com because of the product that is for sale, not because I like the www.widgets.com itself.
To come back on the proposal I made a few posts ago about rel="nofollow" to a page on your own site: although it should work, I don't use it myself so I don't have any first hand experience on its positive or negative effects.
| 5:43 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'll try the nofollow in the links. This thread has helped me see how internal linking patterns can be a good tool in terms of sending more PR strength to more important pages. Seems like there is no use in wasting it even if the effect is minor. The effect could add up with all the amazon links I have.
| 6:16 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just found this info on the Google Blog.
|From now on, when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results. This isn't a negative vote for the site where the comment was posted; it's just a way to make sure that spammers get no benefit from abusing public areas like blog comments, trackbacks, and referrer lists. |
They seem to be giving rel="nofollow" their approval.