| 10:28 pm on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|More difficult (much more difficult) is getting SiteLinks for a generic term. |
I know a guy who has site links for an extremely generic term. It seems to be primarily based upon PR. It also seems to only happen to homepage keywords as well.
Does anyone else have observations about SiteLinks that might point to how the algo works in awarding them to a #1 ranking domain?
I've learned that sitelinks do not guarantee that those "extra" links will actually point to your site. I saw an example today where 6 of the 8 sitelinks went to a different domain entirely. It was weird. Actually the domain in question was a subdomain and the site links when to a different subdomain owned/managed by someone else.
| 10:36 pm on Nov 14, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Yes! One of the SiteLinks for the client I mentioned goes to a different subdomain.
This is clear evidence that subdomains are not treated exactly like "different" domains, but only that there is some kind of separation. For example, you can still get two main domain results plus a subdomain result on the same SERP - they don't get clustered and they don't get filtered.
I haven't see SiteLinks pointing to a completely different domain, however.
| 1:03 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
It wasn't so the last time I checked ( around when GWT introduced the sitelinks tab, a few weeks ago ), but right now the links for a site of mine include one of its subdomains.
Except for one, the 8 sitelinks show the top 8 high traffic URLs.
But then again... these are at the top of the navigation, the site uses Analytics, GWT, and there aren't that many public/crawlable pages on it.
| 1:08 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
The official name is "Sitelinks."
From Google's Webmaster Tools:
|Sitelinks are completely automated, and we show them only if we think they'll be useful to the user. If your site's structure doesn't allow our algorithms to find good sitelinks, or we don't think that the sitelinks are relevant to the user's query, we won't show them. However, we are always working to improve how we find and display sitelinks. |
| 1:33 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I hope I can mention these specific searches.
A few weeks ago, the Senate of my country voted something which was against the vast majority of the will of the citizens.
Next day, the blogsphere started a concerted movement; hundreds of popular blogs linked to the Senate homepage with an anchor text like 'national shame'.
The homepage, as expected, already had sitelinks for the search [Senate]. Only two or three days later, a search for [national shame] returned the Senate homepage, with sitelinks. The interesting point is that the sitelinks were the same, in both cases.
To me, this seems to indicate that, to get the sitelinks, one must: first, reach #1 for a search term; second, have so many visitors (as is certainly the case with the Senate website) that Google can obtain a pattern of which pages are the most popular ones.
Does anybody have other interpretation?
| 1:53 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
that Google can obtain a pattern of which pages are the most popular ones
Lots of "sitelink" pages I see are clearly not the most popular pages. They seem to be based upon navigation. Focusing on "contact" "info" "faq" pages, etc.
| 2:25 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I noticed that 2 of the Sitelinks have changed a couple of times over the past few weeks.
Of the 8 shown, four are part of the site's main navigation as for the other 4 I can't pinpoint why they have been selected other than there are links on the homepage to these pages - they are definately not the most popular pages on the site and there are hundreds of pages that Google sends far more traffic to daily, so for me I'm ruling out any traffic/popularity factors.
As a test I will swap two of the four links and see if the Sitelinks change and post the outcome.
| 3:24 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
I "broke" a sitelinks on a college site by making a necessary change in the url - page names, top level links. Fortunately the site recovered in a couple of months and had the sitelinks back.
When the sitelinks are there, you defo get more traffic.
I thought I saw a correlation with sitelinks and traffic. It bombed over the summer period () but recovered at the obvious time. Sitelinks went and returned. This could well be a very big coincendence.
I've just 301'd the college to a new domain so it will be worth finding out how long it Google takes to grant those sitelinks again to a trusted .ac.
| 3:27 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Do you think sitelinks are that dynamic these days?
When I "broke" sitelinks I made a change to the anchor text and where the actual page was.
I suppose if you just move the links a tiny bit about on the page it might not screw thngs up.
| 11:36 am on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
A few months ago one of my sites had Sitelinks for a generic two word phrase until I added about 70 links to the homepage to reduce click depth of some inner pages
- the Sitelinks disappeared.
About four weeks ago I removed these links and a new set of Sitelinks reappeared.
The interesting part:
Four of the Sitelinks point to pages that are not linked from the homepage, but were part of the links I removed four weeks ago. Will they be replaced in the near
The anchortexts of these four Sitelinks are and never were used as anchortexts by myself and the titles of the linked pages are 'Company - anchortext'. How does Google
determine the anchortexts?
BTW: Has anybody already made use of the 'block' option in the Sitelinks section of GWT? Are blocked links replaced by different links, do they simply disappear and you
end up with six or seven Sitelinks, or do the Sitelinks completely disappear?
| 2:38 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|Lots of "sitelink" pages I see are clearly not the most popular pages. They seem to be based upon navigation. Focusing on "contact" "info" "faq" pages, etc. |
Six of the eight sitelinks for my main site are from its header and footer links. I am therefore satisfied with Google's automated choices, and don't plan to request any deletions. Although I have wondered if new sitelinks could boost SERPs for the chosen word(s).
One thing I don't like is truncated sitelinks.
| 4:12 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
Interesting on the "Log In" page factor as well. Is this the first maybe-evidence we've seen of the toolbar affecting results?
| 4:38 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
In GWT is says "If your site's structure doesn't allow our algorithms to find good sitelinks we won't show them"
Does any one think that having images for your navigation would have an effect on this?
Would placing an alternative textlinked navigation at the bottom of the page be worth ago?
| 8:01 pm on Nov 15, 2007 (gmt 0)|
sandpetra I honestly dont know if sitelinks are that dynamic as it's something I haven't studied or paid much attention too.
OutdoorWebcams raises the point about the anchor text and lookingatit mentions images.
Of the four non navigational Sitelinks that I see the anchor text seems automated by Google as these four Sitelinks are generated from 4 images and as OutdoorWebcams mentioned, the page titles do include the anchor text but do have more text surrounding it and this would also apply to the 4 navigational sitelinks - so for me I'm ruling that idea out too.
As I said above I dropped two of the links off the homepage and replaced them so it's just a matter of waiting to see the result - if any.
| 5:34 am on Nov 16, 2007 (gmt 0)|
|BTW: Has anybody already made use of the 'block' option in the Sitelinks section of GWT? Are blocked links replaced by different links, do they simply disappear and you |
end up with six or seven Sitelinks, or do the Sitelinks completely disappear?
I blocked two links mainly because the naming of these links were terrible, these were blocked for a couple of days, and they disappeared from my totals shown, they weren't replaced just didn't show,
so i figured i could live with the bad naming and unblocked them a week later they were showing with different link text now I've got the same 8 links just the two i blocked have changed names.
still trying to figure it out...