Forum Moderators: open
How would google take that into account?
a) no change, since new inbound links are equally good. PR stays the same
b) a site that suddenly looses all inbound links must trigger some filter (even if it gets new links it still looks like something isnt right)
b) it's a positive thing, since newly gained links indicate that the site is fresh, active, someone is actually working on it etc.. (newly gained links mean more than old lost ones)
Anyone experienced enough to theorize on the topic?
Thanks,
Darko
How would google take that into account?
<<
You're not getting much in the way of replies.
My own feeling, based on the other threads that are going on is that google wouldn't notice for about 3 months...
As regards your suggestion that "fresh is good", there is a huge difference in computational resource when comparing
a) The date this page was last modified with the date Google recorded that it was modified (a 4-byte comparison)
b) The list of all the links pointing to this page now with the list of all the links pointing to this page last time it was indexed (potentially unlimited number of bytes in the comparison)
Any fast search engine would surely go for the fast comparison.
DerekH
Say you have a site which has 10 good PR5 inbound links and every now and then all or most existing inbound links are replaced with equal amount, equal PR and quality set of inbound links. All previous inbound links are removed and instead there are 10 new PR5 links.
How would google take that into account?a) no change, since new inbound links are equally good. PR stays the same
b) a site that suddenly looses all inbound links must trigger some filter (even if it gets new links it still looks like something isnt right)
c) it's a positive thing, since newly gained links indicate that the site is fresh, active, someone is actually working on it etc.. (newly gained links mean more than old lost ones)
Anyone experienced enough to theorize on the topic?
Thanks,
Darko
definitely C in the robot world. SERPs less so... although if you were tracking the link pattterns and relevancies and making traffic charts you might derive benefit.
A is fallacious- the relevance of the inbound links will vary.
B google does not autofilter this behavior (yet). whether it redflags is questionable. if there is a redflag, they don't have the Eyeball Power to enforce it.
quick question
is it better to have links from 200 PR 0 and 1 sites or 25 PR 3 and 4 sites.... which will be better...
thanks
is it better to have 200 PR 0 and 1 sites or 25 PR 3 and 4 sites.... which will be better...If you are targetting PR, I guess the second one is better. But for ranking, if you can get keywords in link text from 200 PR 0, the first one is ideal. And if you can manage backlinks from high PR sites with appropriate link text, it's the best for PR as well as ranking (links on high PR pages are taken into account sooner, since high PR pages are crawled more often).
I have few PR4 links and 1 PR 5 link. Also the site is in dmoz and yahoo but in PR 3 categories... hopefully that will improve soon.
i am getting quite a few low pr links but i didnt know which to work on few high pr sites or lots of low pr sites...
