| 5:07 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I doubt it.
How are you searching for their incoming links?
Maybe you have missed some key links. They also get credit for outgoing links.
Ranking is relative; without inter-site linking, a site cannot rank, as there can be no relativity.
| 8:21 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I would not post it if I had not seen it. Look at tripadvisor and other such large sites.
I have seeen it several times recently.
The reason being that trust is such an important factor now, that trust also counts on internals. Feel free to scoff, unless you try you will never know.
[edited by: Crush at 8:24 am (utc) on Feb. 15, 2007]
| 8:47 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
tripadvisor, has a gabizillion incoming links
| 9:13 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
i think he means inbounds with the searched term.....if you have lots of links you will rank for any term whether or not your inbound anchors have the term or even related terms....
i think you also need to consider not just if the site has a gazillion inbounds but perhaps whether or not its whitelisted....
as for most of the other big travel widget sites...i havent yet found one that hasnt setup bogus networks of links....
| 9:29 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"tripadvisor, has a gabizillion incoming links"
Not for every phrase. Just look at the internal anchor on their site and you will get the picture of what is going on. It is huge internal anchor manchine and like I say, there is a good reason behind it. Again feel free to not do anything, does not bother me.
| 9:41 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
If the contention is inner pages rank solely on internals, there's nothing new there....
| 9:57 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
No there isn't - but that's not what he claims.
And as he now accepts that such sites DO have incoming links, how can he possibly separate out the effects of either?
| 10:24 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
he's saying that once you achieve a certain status (he says trusted) you can do anything with your internal links and rank for any term. If you do not have a certain status you will be filtered for doing that. He is making a real point about becoming an internal link machine. It wasnt possible to do this in the past when sites were not isolated from filters in the way they are now.
| 10:30 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
OK, flame squad. It used to work fine years ago, then it didn't. So right, nothing new there. What I am saying on trusted domains internal is working nicely for competitive serps. Not a serp like green widgets in downtown widget town. I am talking Big widget.
As for externals tripadvisor buys links on news sites (sitewides) for locations where they need lots of links, like london and new york, btw that works for them too because their site is a steamroller. There was some debate about internal strength a while back and the main factor IS STILL external links. I am not disputing that at all as we spend 1000's a month on incoming links.
To make it easy for you all, what I think has changed is trusted internals count a lot more now than they used to.
| 10:39 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Tedster started a good thread a few days back and he got flamed for trying to raise a good discussion.
recently, i made an overhaul on one of my sites. a trusted one, that's for sure. i added plenty new pages and after 2 weeks they rank page 1-3 on many keywords just on internals.
then i put lots lots lots of links to a page on am much less trusted site. it eventually went up but the number of links i used would be enough to get the entire trusted site to #1 everywhere.
looks like they dont want to listen, Crush. let's take our money and let them do their own thing.
| 10:48 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I don't even have to look to say this:
Tripadvisor has a ton of inbound links to thousands of internal pages...this is where their strength lies...
If you don't believe me .. check it out...
This is where their real strength lies...
Their internal linking structure is very well developed and with deep interior pages garnering some serious inbound linkage from sources outside of their domain...they can pretty much rank for what and where they want..
It's called "market structure saturation"
| 11:28 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
No-one's flaming; we're just sceptical that what you are describing is casued the way you say.
No-one is disputing the importance of good site navigation either.
Instead of getting huffy and feeling abused (you are not), why not let us now how you can be so sure that what you see is what you think it is.
| 11:44 am on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
perhaps its wrong to get wrapped up in tripadvisor. You can see the same thing on a large number of heavy weight brands. The main point being that inbound anchors need not have anything to do with the search term. They are just part of what gets the site a certain status. Once they status is achieved your internals are taken at face value. You can basically rank for what ever you want. If you do the same thing without that status you will be dropped altogether. The other point is whether trsusted=whitelisted. Can you achieve the same thing with white isting alone and few inbounds. Is it co-incidental white listed sites also have lots of inbounds. What gives more of a trusted status, white listing or huge numbers of inbounds. You cant see the white listings and it may be altering perceptions of what is happening.
| 1:26 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
*..what I think has changed is trusted internals count a lot more now than they used to.*
Can't say I've ever noted a drop in their "value" and I'm a big fan of a proper site architecture, maybe other factors were to blame for your noting a drop in internal link value?
| 1:50 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
its notable now because non-trusted sites (not my def) are far more heavily filtered and penalised for internal linking structure.
| 3:53 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've used very heavy internal linking on my sites since before there was Google. For me it was and still is a very important way of retaining visitors and increasing my page views per visit. My primary site is one of those "trusted" sites with around 50,000+ inbound links from other sites (according to Yahoo). Based on my own estimates, I'm guessing my site has over 1,000,000 internal links with the top 50 pages being linked to by all 15,000+ pages on my site.
What I know is that if I add a new primary page (a page that is linked to by all other pages) it will quickly gain a PR5 or PR6 within two Google PR updates and that new content fairly quickly raises up in the SERPs of any search engine once they get indexed.
So is heavy internal linking important? You bet your ___ it is. With that said, heavy internal linking without having a lot of inbound links will do you no good. Quality inbound links give a site as a whole relevance and "trustworthiness". Internal links help define pages and rank their importance within said site.
Internal linking will not help pages of a site rank better if that site doesn't have lots of inbound links from other sites to begin with.
[edited by: KenB at 3:55 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2007]
| 4:21 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The title of this thread is so true. One of my competitors decided that he would place internal footer links (approx to 50 pages) on every single one of his forum threads (probably around 150,000 indexed pages in G). Although their inbound link profile is kinda poor, and nothing compared to numerous other sites in the niche - they seem to rank top2 for pretty much every term that they are linking to in their footers.
Spam sucks, but it works right now :(
[edited by: Nick0r at 4:25 pm (utc) on Feb. 15, 2007]
| 4:26 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The fact that only properly set up, relevant pages/anchor text will make other pages trusted for broad relevancy is pretty new, make it, it was probably introduced this year. Somewhat tied to this phrase-based reranking system everyone is talking about.
To over-simplify it ( for myself ) I like to think that every single site and page has a different trustrank for every single phrase / topic. And this trustrank-for-phrases ( or themes ) is spreading with both external and internal anchor text ( since it's page and not domain based ).
If your homepage gets a link from a trusted site that's relevant to it, and with an anchor text that's relevant to both, you'll still need to pass on this trust to the categories/subpages with the internal anchor text. Previously this wasn't so, if a domain was trusted, all it had to do is add on-page relevancy signals. Now trust is tied to the themes/phrases/phrase sets of the source page/target page/anchor text ( note i'm using the word PAGE ), with all three having to match ( share at least broad relevancy ).
This comes at a time where relevancy signals seem to be measured with not only the actual words and phrases used on-page and in the anchor text. Meaning you don't have to add a link for every single variant of the same phrase, only those you don't see to be "matched up to each other" by Google when doing a search. As Google gets more and more data for its phrase matching systems and builds entire dictionaries on different topics, it'll apply these sets to pages to see if they're relevant, on topic, or spam. And since trustrank had this interesting habit of giving the power to off-topic pages to vote ANYTHING into the primary index, in that way this is a HUGE change.
Only on-topic links will pass on broad relevancy.
And trust is tied to relevancy as well. Thus only trusted, on-topic links will work with a clustering effect, and this includes the way you lay out the internal navigation.
Not that most of us haven't been working according to this for quite some time... but many others have not, and played the "keyword penetration game" instead. Their sites will most likely sink like a stone... unless they watch out for these things.
| 5:13 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
From my perspective, as a relative new comer to SEO but looking at it as a programming issue.
The site mentioned
reg/online early 2006
already has in excess of 5 dmoz links
in excess of 8,500 unique sites linking in
Probably set up by an apex seo chap :-)
with the level of link power this site has on each page, whether tansferred from the index page or from direct inbound linking, the anchor text of internal links are bound to carry extraordinary influence in the SERPS.
An awesome achievement, but entirely consistent with everthing i've learned from you guys here, and logical from a programming view
| 6:54 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I've had pages with no IBLs at all rank for money terms for years. Not monster ones like in the travel industry, but amazing nonetheless. they probably just turned up the dial for internal links.
| 7:11 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
*..are far more heavily filtered and penalised for internal linking structure.*
Can't say I've noticed any threads on this, did it come out from one of the 950 penalty ones?
| 7:38 pm on Feb 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I have seen similar patterns with a majority of backlinks coming from internal pages. Sites with a national presence are far outweighing the local heavyweights. These national sites have nothing local other than some dynamic text filling in the blanks.
| 2:57 am on Feb 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Miamacs has it right, in my view. The key is relevancy (purpose of a link) both ineternally and more importantly externally. I have never played the "linking game" and tried to decieve any SE. My focus has always been strong site architecture (logical site navigation), great content, and building relevant links one at a time over the course of a year.
Just like in the real world, trust is not something that happens overnight. If you can day by day, build your site into a resource, Google will learn to trust you. That trust then is inhereted by those you surround yourself with (pages are like people) and ther is an inferred credibility that is passed along. Thus, with a family like the Kennedy's it's almost automatic that their off-spring have their reputation (good or bad, depending on your POV).
I know I am probably over simplifying things, but I truly believe that most SEO debate is over-reaction to mythical monsters that don't exist.
| 6:25 am on Feb 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I like a vibrant discussion ... keep it going :)
Another twist on this is "whats holding" and "what's not" on recent changes of emphasis with link srengths. If the observation is in the travel sector, which i believe to be highly competitive, then those with preceding strengths built up over many years have seen them challenged.
Typically reduced or gone are:
- reciprical link strength
- duplicate content
- purchased links ( more indentifiable )
- link networks ( more identifiable )
So those remaining with good internal link architectures, good "trust rank" will float to the top. ( IMO )
Just my angle on it for what it's worth.
| 8:02 am on Feb 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|they probably just turned up the dial for internal links. |
From recent serps for internal pages on several client sites that might be "trusted," I can say anecdotally that on some pages they've turned up the dial, and on some they've apparently turned it down. ;)
| 5:48 pm on Feb 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
*they probably just turned up the dial for internal links.*
I suppose if you want to see who's abusing internals you turn up the dial and flag "unnatural" risings...
| 6:20 pm on Feb 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
"purchased links ( more indentifiable ) "
Not to get too off topic. But with this latest update I couldnt disagree more.
Methods that would seem obvious to me to find, have successfully ranked link buyers even better now with this latest update.
| 9:50 pm on Feb 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The power of internal links has definitely gone through the floor. Blog comment links and purchased (off topic, irrelavnt) links rule the serps now.
Internals will always be the key to ranking legitmate internal pages, but for now volume of external crap links rules.
| 11:03 am on Feb 17, 2007 (gmt 0)|
When some claim they've gone through the floor and others through the roof I'd suspect some other factor is in play...
| This 49 message thread spans 2 pages: 49 (  2 ) > > |