homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

    
INTERNAL Linking + Keyword Rich Anchor Texts = Penalty?
lolamjambuna




msg:4686553
 6:21 am on Jul 10, 2014 (gmt 0)

Suppose there is a page on my site: abc.com/build-widget which have unique and very detailed (4000+ words) content in it.

I have 10 more pages (on some other topic) and I INTERNAL link to above page using this keyword only: BUILD WIDGET

As far as I can understand the concept, BUILD WIDGET is a Keyword Rich Anchor Text and is a widely used search term.

Am I continuously asking or maybe forcing Google to rank my website whenever someone searches for BUILD WIDGET? Can this trigger a penalty or algorithm of some sort?

Thanks :)

[edited by: goodroi at 1:24 pm (utc) on Jul 10, 2014]
[edit reason] Widgetized [/edit]

 

aristotle




msg:4686791
 12:35 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

Most likely this is the kind of question that no one (except possibly a Google employee) can answer. I'm seen numerous posts here where someone was wondering whether some minor detail like this could cause a traffic drop. This type of question arises because of the impression that Google's algorithm has numerous little "traps" that can trip you up, even if your site is the best in its niche in all other respects.

lolamjambuna




msg:4686846
 6:24 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

Hi aristotle,

Thanks for your reply.

What do you think about using only naked URLs (abc.com/build-widget) when linking externally as well as internally within an article? I know this may look very ugly, but I am really very tired of Google.

Some popular websites are suggesting not to use Keyword Rich Anchor Texts even for Internal linking. Instead they are suggesting either use long tail keywords or some random weird keyword.

Thanks :)

FranticFish




msg:4686849
 7:20 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

It's a possibility, but on the face of it ten internal links to a 4000 word article would seem safe to me - unless that internal article ridiculously overdoes the term involved.

1) Are the links 'in-content' or are they in a nav or sub-nav widget?
2) Have the links always existed (i.e. when each of the ten pages was added to the site the link was on it from the outset) - or were they 'retro-fitted'?
3) Is the term in question used in external links pointing to the page or the site?

I haven't seen an OOP (over optimisation penalty) first hand for 7 years, so I'm probably out of date on what's good/bad now and how to fix them. In my case I had overdone exact match anchor text (from external links) to the page and then overdone keywords in the page. I 'de-optimised' the page and that fixed things within a short space of time. I don't know if Google's so forgiving now.

I always try to make my in-content internal linking as helpful as possible, so rather than 'build widget' (which I can't see naturally occurring in text) it would be 'find out how to build a widget' or 'read my step by step widget building guide'. When linking from within the context of different articles I think the anchor text would vary naturally.

I started doing this out of fear, because of the desire to randomise linking and avoid penalties (I had to unlearn many bad habits I picked up from my initial aggressive / factory SEO efforts), but I think it's good practice because it seems more helpful to the reader and it's more of a call to action too.

[edited by: FranticFish at 7:30 am (utc) on Jul 11, 2014]

A1Seo




msg:4686850
 7:22 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

Some popular websites are suggesting not to use Keyword Rich Anchor Texts even for Internal linking

Are these sites trustworthy enough?

In my experience, keyword rich anchor texts for internal linking is fine and works well unless you really overdid it.

lolamjambuna




msg:4686859
 7:38 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

Hi FranticFish

Thanks for your response :)

1. All links are in-content.
2. The links always existed when the other 10 pages were published.
3. NO

Actually I lost 80% of my blog's traffic on 28th of June 2014 and I don't understand the reason behind it at all: [webmasterworld.com...]

On some reputed SEO websites I read that we shouldn't use keyword Rich Anchor Text for internal linking.

In my blog, whenever I finish writing an article I put in-content links to some of my previous articles that are relevant to the current topic as follows:

Also see: [Very Popular and Highly Searched Keyword 1] and [Very Popular and Highly Searched Keyword 2]


I have done this in each and every article of mine and I am not sure whether this is triggering some sort of penalty or algorithm...!

I always try to make my in-content internal linking as helpful as possible, so rather than 'build widget' (which I can't see naturally occurring in text) it would be 'find out how to build a widget' or 'read my step by step widget building guide'.


Yes this is the same advise other BIG and well known websites are giving to everyone.

BTW What's your view on Naked URLs (for internal as well as external linking within the content) without any anchor text?

Thanks :)

lolamjambuna




msg:4686861
 7:43 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

@A1Seo

Thanks for your reply.

Yes some of those websites are very popular and the author is highly trustworthy.

Maybe I over did it, but from different pages within my site.

Robert Charlton




msg:4686891
 9:24 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

IMO, it's both silly and ugly to use naked URLs for contextual internal navigation.

Also, contextual linking often raises flags for me, because it's been overused by SEOs. It's appropriate for use as footnotes in a site like Wikipedia, where article receive external inbound links and have that link juice to redistribute. That's not the case, though, for most sites... and I've seen contextual link used to a ridiculous degree, often in ecommerce sites.

While contextual links might possibly work for what you have in mind, my suggestion is that you'd be best to err on the side of restraint.

I would worry less about the repetition than about the number of unnecessary links, introduced just to include repetitive anchor text. I don't know whether that's what's going on, but it sounds like it might be.

FranticFish




msg:4686892
 9:24 am on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

This is only a thought, but perhaps the end of an article receives more scrutiny than in-content links, and (over)use of short phrases in keywords there is a flag for over-optimisation?

I say this because factory SEO articles always used to end with something like this: 'AN Other is a copywriter based in the UK writing about [insert keyword here]'

The fake blogs I've seen powering rankings just this week invariably had their links within the body of the article rather than at the end of it.

Perhaps Google moved the goalposts and you've been given a low quality score because you're lumped in with a practice increasingly seen as spammy.

Note that most blog CMS systems will link to related posts on the post's title, which is a longer phrase usually designed to grab attention and reads more naturally. It will contain the keyword(s) but not ONLY the keyword(s).

I think that the way you're linking is a little too keyword-focused and not enough user-focused. Whether that's the reason (or the only reason) you've been hit I've no idea, but I would recommend making your internal links more useful and descriptive in any case.

lolamjambuna




msg:4686938
 12:48 pm on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

Thanks for your replies :)

I will make the necessary changes in the anchor texts and then will wait and see what happens from Google's side?

If something positive happens then good, if nothing happens then this will be another arrow which I shooted in the dark.

RankNFile




msg:4686954
 2:17 pm on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

*raising hand*

I'm confused about why internal links would ever be at risk for over optimization. This isn't very helpful to the original poster, but it is helpful to me if anyone could clarify...

Planet13




msg:4686991
 4:26 pm on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)

"I'm confused about why internal links would ever be at risk for over optimization. This isn't very helpful to the original poster, but it is helpful to me if anyone could clarify... "

I am glad you asked and would suggest that you re-read Robert Charlton's post above. Please note:

"While contextual links might possibly work for what you have in mind, my suggestion is that you'd be best to err on the side of restraint."

I would agree with this: I think that google monitors (through android, chrome, chrome os, or other means) the click-through rate of internal navigation links that are placed in-context (and also probably in navigation bars).

If it sees a lot of links to the same page(s) and a low click through rate page, that page (or the site) MIGHT be looked at as having less quality.

WARNING: this is pretty much blind speculation on my part, but I think there is SOME KIND of system in place that, if it doesn't work that way exactly, has some sort of a similar effect.

~~~~

Also, internal links often use targeted keywords, and it can look spammy.

mirrornl




msg:4687175
 1:21 pm on Jul 12, 2014 (gmt 0)

Matt about: "Will multiple internal links with the same anchor text hurt a site's ranking? "

Answer: tippically not


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ybpXU0ckKQ

lolamjambuna




msg:4687205
 3:48 pm on Jul 12, 2014 (gmt 0)

^ Thanks for Sharing :)

JD_Toims




msg:4687272
 1:43 am on Jul 13, 2014 (gmt 0)

"While contextual links might possibly work for what you have in mind, my suggestion is that you'd be best to err on the side of restraint."

I would agree with this: I think that google monitors (through android, chrome, chrome os, or other means) the click-through rate of internal navigation links that are placed in-context (and also probably in navigation bars).

If it sees a lot of links to the same page(s) and a low click through rate page, that page (or the site) MIGHT be looked at as having less quality.

What you're saying pretty much says, "Don't do things like WikiPedia, even though it's one of the 'most liked' sites on the Internet, by search engines and users alike."

I'm confused about why internal links would ever be at risk for over optimization.

Google has stated repeatedly it shouldn't be an issue in most cases. But, even though their statements align with WikiPedia, some major news organizations, some major SEO sites, etc. ranking well, WikiPedia, other site's rankings and Google's statements completely contradict what some seem to think -- I'd go with "follow the leaders" in this case and link contextually where I could and where it made sense to users, because it's a fairly accepted practice.

What I wouldn't do is "go SEO style" and count/limit/manipulate the links on a page to influence PageRank -- I'd link where it made sense and if that mean 15 contextual links on one page but only two on another, that's what I'd do.

Planet13




msg:4687303
 5:21 am on Jul 13, 2014 (gmt 0)

Well, do what you think is best.

lolamjambuna




msg:4690600
 2:08 pm on Jul 25, 2014 (gmt 0)

Is this article relevant to this thread: [seroundtable.com...] ?

Time to edit INTERNAL Links with Keyword Rich Anchor Texts?

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved