Forum Moderators: open
How do sites get top rankings with a low PR?
Is Google not using PR now as a prominent factor for SE rankings...just mostly good SEO of web pages?
Thanks
[edited by: engine at 1:30 pm (utc) on June 8, 2004]
[edit reason] specifics [/edit]
you have pretty much answered your own question. PR is a affect of a links. Get links it is those that will drive you up the rankings. Get good anchor text from the sites, if they are on topic, so much the better. Then consider your on page optimisation.
If I was you I would edit out your specific, not allowed to mention precise search phrases. Either that or a mod will do it for you :)
In competitve serps you will find it does have an impact. Conduct experiments if you want with KWD. Start low and increase over time, using the same number of inbounds and watch your ranking.
You are right that inbounds with anchor text are key, but for all round good results you need onpage. Why do you think there are so many content based sites.
"Get good anchor text from the sites, if they are on topic, so much the better."
1. Should anchor text (containing relevant keywords) always be the same? ie blue widget services San Diego" to help increase PR or should it be mixed up ie "San Diego blue widget services"
2. Does it help the PR of the homepage if one creates absolute URL links on internal pages using anchor text with keywords used on the homepage? (Whew..long sentence..hope it's clear:-)
Best.
Another option to drive users to your site is to focus on niche keywords. For those it is often easy to get good rankings no matter which PR you have
greg
Keep the linking natural. How likely do you think it is that 500 websites will link to one page/site with the same anchor text. Not very.
How likely do you think it is that 500 websites will link to one page/site with the same anchor text. Not very.
On any large highly branded site, inevitable if not extremely likely.
I know exactly what you meant but thought I better clarify the point that it's not about numbers, it's about percentages.
If you only have 500 backlinks in total, and they all have the same anchor text, you are likely to get reduced in importance by googles algo according to reports we've read here.
If you have 500 backlinks all with identical anchor text, out of a total of 5,000, you're probably ok.
TJ
<Edit>Before you ask me what the optimum percentage is, I don't know and if I did I wouldn't say.</Edit>
[edited by: trillianjedi at 3:01 pm (utc) on June 8, 2004]
Is Google not using PR now as a prominent factor for SE rankings
PR is still a factor in the algo. The knob that represents PR importance in the whole process gets tweaked from time to time.
It's one of over a hundred factors. Inter-relevance of those factors is a moving target. The only real consistency I've ever seen on those factors is with anchor text and page titles. Everything else seems to fluctuate.
Someone could answer that for you now, and in a months time the answer is invalid. You need to be Jack of all trades with google.
just mostly good SEO of web pages?
Which (with white hat on) is good quality content, well written and with well designed navigation.
TJ
:) I did mention that part about branding the other day in another post. If it were the BBC then is is more likely, but you nailed it with the percentages.
Take a look at some of your own backlinks. They vary. Some people don't even use anchor text, just a plain URL. Some people squash your title up, some people alter it slightly. Some people use your perfect keyword phrase. Look at them - make comparisons.
Now imagine you have a database of over 4 billion links to look at and make comparisons with.
TJ
2. Does it help the PR of the homepage if one creates absolute URL links on internal pages using anchor text with keywords used on the homepage?
Two-parter there. It's good to link back to the homepage with the absolute URL; it eliminates confusion and keeps things consistent.
Linking back to the homepage using the anchor text isn't PR-related (as far as the anchor text is concerned), but you don't want to overdo on that. Particularly if it's a keyword phrase that's also being used on inbound links, if it's overdone within the site it can easily push it over the top percentage-wise, with too many identical.
Also, for varying the percentage on the inbounds, it can't hurt to have some going to interior pages in addition to the homepage to reinforce their relevance for the homepage. It doesn't take many.
How the heck can google penalize you for having similar anchor text in all of your backlinks? Ultimately, you're not responsible for the anchor text that other webmasters use. And if your site's title AND url mirror the name of your industry, what else are other webmasters going to use for anchor text anyway? Example: if my site is about "african kangaroos" and this is the url and title of the site, I think I can safely assume that those linking to me will say "african kangaroos" in their anchor text. The whole notion seems absurb to me.
Similar anchor text in all your back links is fine, but having identical anchor text could throw up some red flags.
Yes, exactly. That's why some people are not inclined to be using their main keyword phrase in their domain name any more. It's easier to vary if it isn't. Better and safer to go for a brandable domain name that *maybe* only includes one of the words in the phrase.
When you see a low PR page ranked for competitive keyword, check their homepage PR. Mostly it will be a 5+. Authority sites rule.
If a low PR homepage gets ranked for a competitive keyword, check for its backlinks. A high % of pages linking to will be bang on theme.
Don't worry if you don't get high PR backlinks to your site. Worry if you don't get thematic and relevant pages linking to you.
Enjoy, if you can get a 5+ PR to your site by getting links from all on theme pages.
On page factors? Worry after you have worried about all that is mentioned above.
Best Wishes
Mc
They don't. Don't give in to the spam mentality. Anchor text should be naturally useful, not randomized for some percieved seo purposes.
>>naturally useful
There's no such thing as "stuffing" that's naturally useful. Not meta tag stuffing, keyword stuffing, alt attribute stuffing and not anchor text stuffing. Stuffing is for turkeys.
There is NO earthly reason why all the anchor text has to be the same; most of the time it's contrived. And there have been people hit for it.
Nobody said it should. This black and white idea just seems to suck the logic out of people.
There is no earthly reason all anchor text has to be be different.
The world is not so black and white.
Randomizing anchor text just to randomize is the height of spam seo. It's a pointless exercise with no useful purpose whatsoever.
Make anchor text natural. Yahoo doesn't sit around worrying about making some of their anchor text "big portal". Make your anchor text useful to your users, keyword descriptive of the page content, and accurate. Randomizing for the sake of randomizing is a big red flag, and should be.
===
And "stuffing" has nothing to do with it. Stuffing, like randomizing, is the opposite of natural.
If it's domain or site name linking it's one thing. Random webmasters deciding to link to a site will not necessarily all use the identical anchor text; it's likely to be a relatively varied selection. Webmasters soliciting the links who send the code along for the sake of allinachor: often will.
Having them contrived to be identical might just be a whole lot easier to detect than varied. Besides, why would it need to be identical if it isn't the site name?
Then again, Joe Jones' "cheap DSL" site starting out as a PR3 doesn't have exactly the same kind of immunity a Yahoo/SBC would have.
And why would anyone think that having all identical site name anchor text would be bad? (Maybe you aren't suggesting that, but others certainly have been.)
And the same holds true for the title of the actual content of the page.
Randomized link text on the same domain to the same page is an enormous red flag for spam, and this very poor idea is being suggested here a lot, while the same domain having all its links being the natural title of the page is not just a good idea, it is logical and sensible from any user perspective. (Some pages of course will naturally be about several topics and could have different link text very naturally.)
Additionally, the reality for most everyone is that they will have more internal links to any page than external ones -- with the possible exception of the root URL page. One domain with a variety of different anchor text to a page is either a sign of schizophrenia, or a naked dude in the middle of the street waving a red flag screaming "hey look at me I'm sending a spam signal".
The problems come from from unnatural anchor text, and there are several ways to be unnatural including ways that are very different than each other.
How the heck can google penalize you for having similar anchor text in all of your backlinks? Ultimately, you're not responsible for the anchor text that other webmasters use.
They don't "penalize" you, you just won't get all the credit that you expect.
Additionally, the reality for most everyone is that they will have more internal links to any page than external ones -- with the possible exception of the root URL page. One domain with a variety of different anchor text to a page is either a sign of schizophrenia, or a naked dude in the middle of the street waving a red flag screaming "hey look at me I'm sending a spam signal".
Let's say you had a cooking website, and people linked directly to your recipies not the homepage. If your recipies were good enough you could quite easily and logically have more links to pages other than your home page with a very wide variety of anchor text.
It's hard to believe this. In my category there is a site that has 6090 links in Google. More than 95% links come with same link text. The site rank number 2 (used to be # 1) for a very competitive keyword that brings 41,000,000 web sites in Google.
Site has not much useful content but just full of affiliate links going to different sites. Site signup as an affiliate of all the sites that sell that service. Who says content is the king?
How the heck can google penalize you for having similar anchor text in all of your backlinks?
Because normal authoritative sites have a variety.
I, and most people I know, would link to a major site using the only sensible link text - the name of the organisation.
And yet, if you look at the backlinks of major sites you see a whole bunch of link text. "Company Name", "click here", "click", "visit", "website", "Web site", "site", "media corporation", "source", "link", etc.
If you create or buy a large number of links with anchor text "cheap widgets", and you don't have other link text then it isn't going to look natural.
There's a reason we call it 'organic' search engine optimisation. :-)
