|Interlinking within articles vs using a similar pages section|
| 4:24 am on Jun 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Google, via Matt Cutts, have stated that they have the ability to discount link value based on many factors including location within a page.
Similar page sections, typically found at the end of an article, can be considered automated and it's clear that Google isn't a big fan of anything automated in general.
Of course the best type of interlinking is manually within articles but on large sites that's not an easy task. There is software that allows a webmaster to specify keywords and have them point to pre-selected pages. Some of these software applications are quite advanced and allow you to choose how many links per page are included, wether or not multiple keywords can point to one page from any other page etc..etc.
If I switch from using the article bottom similar pages section to software that links actual words within articles (a la wikipedia) and set it up so that the number of links per page remains the same, points to the same places, etc should I expect a slight rankings boost over time?
Or do similar page sections get full value?
| 12:43 pm on Jun 23, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I see this technique working in all niches I've looked at for some time. Post MayDay I think it could be a tactic that gets widely embraced.
For those reasons I'd be cautious about automating it. You could be setting yourself up for an OOP further down the line, even if it produces results now. I don't work on massive (or even big) sites so I make sure do it in moderation, by hand, randomise it (synonyms, extra words) and keep a chart so I can see what I'm doing and how far I'm going.
| 8:20 am on Jun 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I asked similar question a couple months ago and members here were advising to do it manually instead of automatically. I started manual editions but cannot say about results in terms of SERPs. Average pageviews per visit have increased but little.
Eventually, you could automate it for one section and see what happens.
| 8:32 am on Jun 29, 2010 (gmt 0)|
The best example of interlinking is wikipedia, and we all know how well they've done.
However, in the post-mayday world, take a look at the sites that have gone up and gone up BIG. The most blatant thing I see is TONS of 'related' links just dumped at the end of each page.
| 3:17 am on Jun 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|The best example of interlinking is wikipedia, and we all know how well they've done. |
One of the reasons this technique works so well in Wikipedia is that it has the kind of content that receives external inbound links. Linking out from a page that is a link magnet is always more effective than randomly interlinking between pages that have no authority to confer.
| 4:38 am on Jun 30, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Automated is difficult, unless you have the time and patience to sit down for a day to two and develop the logic to find and use related phrases by using a thesaurus or similar DB.