| 11:24 am on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Generally speaking, you can target bad backlinks as "not useful" ones, i.e. see recent Google changes into guidelines: "webmasters can improve the rank of their sites by creating high-quality sites that users will want to use and share." See: [webpronews.com...]
| 12:02 pm on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
How does Google evaluate "not useful"? Is a link from my blog to another site I run useful, for example?
The only one of my examples the "useful" criterion clarifies are scrapers.
| 12:27 pm on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion, a bad backlink is one that doesn't generate a lot of organic traffic in comparison to the traffic the page that is linking out gets. If the linking-out page gets 100 hits a day, and the link generates 2 or 3 click throughs a week, it's - in my opinion - a "bad link". The original point of a link was for people to click on it.
| 12:35 pm on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
In my opinion, all links that are not related to your own site/blog, are bad links. It doesnt matter where they come from, as long as they are related. Site wide links...same story :)
| 1:38 pm on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Search engines - very minor - disavow
- scrapers - disavow
Sitewide from own sites - may be OK depending on whether the sites are big brands or not. Other sites I would remove, nofollow or disavow.
Scrapers - disavow as they don't provide value.
| 2:59 pm on Jun 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|The original point of a link was for people to click on it. |
Yeah, I've always thought that a link wasn't a link unless it got clicked.
And I think Google was granted a patent along those lines in the past couple of years, but I couldn't track it down. In the meantime, Bill Slawski had some good commentary on Google's Reasonable Surfer: How the Value of a Link May Differ Based upon Link and Document Features and User Data [seobythesea.com] that touches on many qualities of a link.
| 4:13 am on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
How things change! I remember the question of site wide links from one's own sites coming up a few years ago and the consensus then was that they were fine.
@sem4u, do you mean very minor search engines, or that it is a very minor issue?
Links a reasonable surfer would not click on sounds like a good principle. I also wonder about links from sites that have high PR but few visitors are low value or harmful.
| 4:38 am on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
A look at my site stats shows that all the links that I get the most traffic from are nofollowed (Wikipedia).
What does that do to the reasonable surfer model?
| 4:41 am on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
If you jump out on Google and type: I think you will find a forest of knowledge to eat.
bruce clay link pruning
| 10:19 am on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I have been doing a lot of Googling, and as far as I can find out only sites with a fairly high proportion of bad links suffer: most of us do not need to worry.
There is another thread on the same subject so I should probably not have started this:
| 10:40 am on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@graeme_p - I meant very minor search engines.
| 1:02 pm on Jun 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Thanks sem4u. Makes sense.