| This 68 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 68 ( 1 2  ) || |
|Cutts at PubCon: "Only the links Google trusts count."|
| 3:51 am on Nov 11, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Q. Everyone says I need more links. How do links improve the quality of the site? I don’t want to play this game and I don’t want to do this.
A: What matters is bottom line. Links are a part of search – they represent online reputation. Although there are many tools that report links, none of the tools can tell you which links are trusted by Google (not even Google’s tools). While the link structure looks bad from the outside, the actual linkgraph that Google uses/trusts looks much better. When the New York Times complained about a site with 10,000 spammy links, Google investigated the site and not a single link had slipped through Google’s filter. Only the links Google trusts count.
Does anyone know which kind of links Google trusts?
| 6:34 am on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
bwnbwn - No, don't get me wrong, I agree links are VALUABLE, in so far as SEs ranking you, we are on the same page there. My point was that no one (including us) wants to do it anymore (or at least not as freely as we used to, even though it IS the key useful FEATURE of HTML) because of the STIGMA that GOOGLE has placed on it. BTW, note, they also penalize you for COPYing content from the site you WOULD have linked if you were allowed to. After all, these days, how are we to know if G THINKS we are SELLING links (God forbid) which we don't. It all seems to come down to the fact that Google wants to earn more revenue from people going through THEM to find additional information about a subject rather than following a much better pre-reviewed and authoritative link from YOUR site. If a site gives visitors additional options which BYPASS a search/link on Google... bury them in nowhere land. Only rank vapid sites which will bounce visitors BACK to Google for more ads. Therefore: HIGHER bounce rate should result in higher ranking by Google standards.
--Matt Cutts simply publisises crap that discourages people from link building. --
or linking out. Agreed.
My prediction is that linking (a noble, useful and glorious concept) will go away altogether purely because of Google and Google will eventually have no data from backlinks to use in their algo.
"create sites for visitors, NOT search engines"... and never be found by either.
| 6:50 am on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Nothing Google people have said has stopped me from linking out to useful sites, or quoting them for that matter. There's way too much overreaction to what people THINK Google is saying, when they are reading in things that just aren't true.
In fact, I'm pretty sure we're seeing fewer and fewer true penalties for "paid links." These days it seems more common for suspect links to simply be ignored by Google.
As others have often said, the web does not belong to Google, it really belongs to everyone. We should continue to act like it does. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are our responsibility, and ee don't need to base our actions on those dark places.
So I say market yourself well and attract those links. Even if they aren't trusted at Google, they can bring you real traffic and make you real online allies. And the odds are, those links WILL be trusted.
| 11:25 am on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I am fighting with competitors all day every day for the top positions on Google. Ive been doing this for years and years. Along came a competitor, out of the blue with a 1 year domain age next to mine which is 10 years. He scammed links on charity sites, employment sites, government and EDU sites. Most of them didn't even know they were being used like this. It was clever and audacious. He used false addresses to get in the maps.
Well, guess what? He's still number one today. He is as shonky as they come. Not one backlink I could find with my fancy tools had any relevance whatsoever to our trade. I even found backlinks on cake decorating sites for godsake.
After so many years of this I'm tired of dancing around Google's nonsense.
Then the Panda updates made sure I could only be found in my own area. I am working like mad to get found outside my area. Across the highway, a search just doesn't find me. I could throw a stone there.
This is madness. Sad that so many businesses rely on their position on Google which is tentative and precarious at best.
| 1:06 pm on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|don't see natural links giving JC Penny's top rankings for all these terms: |
dresses, bedding, area rugs, skinny jeans, home decor, comforter sets, furniture, table clothes, months, Samsonite carry on luggage, etc...
I always thought that once you pass a certain threshold for authority/trust/whatever, the benefits extend to your deeper level pages and phrases. Perhaps that effect plus the direct effect of links.
| 3:27 pm on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Nothing Google people have said has stopped me from linking out to useful sites, or quoting them for that matter. There's way too much overreaction to what people THINK Google is saying, when they are reading in things that just aren't true. |
(deserved to be said again)
| 4:26 pm on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Sad that so many businesses rely on their position on Google which is tentative and precarious at best |
(also deserved to be said again)
| 5:07 pm on Nov 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
@canadafred - some sites are so "favored" by google, that when they release a new page it ranks immediately. The internal page maybe new and only PR0, but that is most likely due to the TBPR not being updated recently, and their homepage is most likely a PR6-8.
| 11:02 pm on Nov 17, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Matt was specifically talking about blog links if I remember well (in this example). Btw he didn't say that Google's own tools couldn't tell which links count, that would make no sense.
| This 68 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 68 ( 1 2  ) |