Forum Moderators: open
If I am targeting some lesser known keywords. Is it detrimental to have outbound links to sites related to those keywords?
I realize that it may in some cases improve my hub score, but does it in turn reduce my authority score. Thus leaving me somewhere in the middle which cant be good for rankings.
Should the strategy be to acheive higher hub status on more competitive words and higher authority status on the lesser.
The more that I learn about this, the more I understand SERPs. Although it has also raised some question for me in regard to inbound and outbound links.
...and the more understanding I have, the more understanding I need... I doubt there is an end to this :)
If I am targeting some lesser known keywords. Is it detrimental to have outbound links to sites related to those keywords?
Not at all. You will find over time that the more connected you are (links) the more googlebot will crawl your pages. It loves links, so sites that have lots... is a good place for it to go to find new stuff.
Best direction - add two page topic related outbound links per page of your site.
I realize that it may in some cases improve my hub score, but does it in turn reduce my authority score. Thus leaving me somewhere in the middle which cant be good for rankings.
Hub/Authority - Generally at the start you will be a hub (more outgoing links (per page & site as a whole) but difficult to avoid this. If you are aiming to develop an authority site - this is more towards what others do - e.g. linking to you without you needing to solicit the links.
In many cases -- web sites have webmaster, who track their logfiles, and/or cookie tracker. Therefore a visitor leaving your site to theirs is often detected. If these (link-to site from you) are higher authority sites - this referral is often reviewed and if there is added value information for the authority site's visitors -- they will provide their visitors an opportunity to reach this new info.
There are significant other reasons for this... but let's just say, you lose nothing.
Should the strategy be to acheive higher hub status on more competitive words and higher authority status on the lesser.
Plan ahead... I generally develop a site for immediate success thus start with lesser competitive keyphrases in mind. All internal optimization practices reflect these lesser keyphrases.
However, all external influences (such as links) are developed with the end goal in mind (or more competitive stuff). Planning this way may start you out at +400 ranked position for "highly competitive keywords" but each update you gain a few positions.
Once achieving about rank #100 - I switch internal references to that of the pre-planned external stuff - the result is an immediate jump to top 20 and a bit of tweaking gets you the rest of the way.
In addition, in most cases the lesser competitive phrases do not drop one bit... since they usually are similar the more competitive ones (just more specific) blue widgets vice widgets.
Hope this helps.
fathom
Thanks for the detailed reply. Right now I have about 70 inbound links using my site name or site name + #1 keyword in the link text. (Ex: CoolWidgetHats.com - Widget hats for sale.)
Most of my sites outbound links "to authorities I presume" are found on informational pages: (Ex: the medical benefits of widget hats page links to MedicalWidgetInfo.com)
My only concern is that I may never make it to #1 or even #10 for my main keyword (very competitive industry), so all of my inbound links w/ #1 keyword phrase may not help. And all of my less competitive keywords direct users to a higher authority via outbounds.
This being the case, should I reverse the theory and use lesser known keywords for inbound links?
1. short anchors for links are always better - blue widgets, red widgets & green widgets, are all widgets thus "widgets" is the most important part to reflect in the anchor text - the "color" (and other adjectives) are preferences.
2. Widgets as the anchor is relevant to any use of "widgets" - "red widgets in Alaska with blue trim" gains relevancy from just "widgets" but less relevancy some "green widgets". So short work across the board.
3. anhor text variations - singular & plurals need "partial parsing" which many indexes do not do. So if your markets are split - using link anchors consistent with the percentage of search use will allow both position ranking to improve on both and approximately at the same time.
e.g. 3,000 uses of plural to 1,000 uses of singular - link anchors should be 3 plurals for every singular. (note: this assumes that the more use also reflects more competitive).
Good Luck ;)
fathom
[edited by: fathom at 3:27 am (utc) on Mar. 2, 2003]
Should all of my inbound links point to my homepage. I have debated this b/c a lot of sites that I contact may be related to just one product I sell. They may prefer to point directly to the category page pertaining to that product instead of my homepage.
Is inbound link importance based on a pages or would it merely credit the domain?
That answered a few more questions. My list is getting shorter with each post. Continuing with this theme.
hmmm... you must be doing something gravely wrong... my list keeps get longer with each question, answered :)
Should all of my inbound links point to my homepage. I have debated this b/c a lot of sites that I contact may be related to just one product I sell. They may prefer to point directly to the category page pertaining to that product instead of my homepage.
The very best theoretical website would have all links pointing directly to the precise page which matches the precise topic of "linking interest", and an even distribtuion of links to each "topical" page. However, this can be somwhat impractical thus in most cases the mainpage do get the vast majority of inbounds.
Where possible -- distribute to many higher level pages (not just mainpage) as this allow great flexibility in planning for & assisting pages that need help is search results (competitiveness is not always equal nor related to the number of competing pages).
Is inbound link importance based on a pages or would it merely credit the domain?
Link Popularity much like PageRank is per page not per site.
Therefore the competitiveness of individual topics (page topics) is bias to a direct relationship between overall site theme to page theme and compared against overall site theme to page theme of other online competitors.
Example: your site's main theme is "widget hats" and you will likely need less here to rank high... however, a deep page in your link structure is about "health issues" that revolve around the use of widgets hats "preventing sun stroke" or just "sun stroke" where another site's main theme is sun stroke itself.
Therefore for this particular page (or site section) to compete at a level that other sites have as a primary theme it will need ranking weight directly to it. The rest of your site will help - but direct inbound links will help more.
As for aiming links at deep links, or home page:
I'm not sure if there's one correct answer for that. I think some inbounds may be more suitable for an inner page, so I go for the deep link. The PR starts on that inner page and spreads out from there, as opposed from the home page, and diluting it among the rest of the pages.
I think it's a personal choice.
However, always remember that once you start amassing deep links, you are committing yourself to always having that same directory/index.html page sitting there soaking up the links. In other words, you are going to have a tough time if you suddenly decide on a site redesign, and have to rename your directory or page.html names (like, if you want to change the name of your directory so that it reflects one word of your keyword phrase, etc.).
In the long run it's less headaches aiming links into the home page. You know what they, Keep It Simple Stanley.
I agree with Fathom and I do the same thing, but it's not always appropriate, especially if the control of the web site ultimately resides with someone else (like the CEO of the company), or you are just starting out and aren't sure if you're going to be changing your mind about your site architecture.
If the purpose, or at least an advantage, of the net is the easy access to information, then deep linking makes sense. But as Martinbuster said, it can lock in your site structure. Or at least makes it much more difficult to change the structure.
This means there is a great advantage to really thinking through he site structure before starting to build the site. Properly done, the structrure can be added to later when you have the appropriate amount of content to justify the addition. I think this can be done without disrupting the inbound link effectiveness, with very carefull preplanning of the site.
planning with the end goal in mind is the first and biggest step to actually being there.
Adding... if a new design is needed and deep-links removes the effectiveness of a strucutre, a new domain and hosting is a quick fix -- noting that your first good quality backlink (deeplinked pages) are already waiting.
The old pages (in this case) becomes intro pages to the new site.
changing your mind about your site architecture. martinibuster
Exactly so keep it simple and plan out your strategy first.
With hub development I find foremost the structure is crucial. I start from my core and work out from there. How the directories/categories are named is important. If I build out pages that support the core then I find no reason to reorganize the structure, although regularly reorganizing the content is good. When I offer a listings I make sure the titles and descriptions compliment the category, remembering they are the content of the page. The same principles of basic optimization apply.
Because of spam many hub/directories limit themselves to the business name in the title. I dont believe that benefits either the hub or the listing.
I was just passing through and saw you guys were talking hubs and it caught my eye. Have fun.
<added>I still live by 1 visitor a day across 50 pages rather than 50 visitors a day to one page. Builds a stronger foundation. That's my input on deep linking.
I think that until I get a good number of links coming in to the homepage before I start deeplinking just to be safe.
Another thought...
Is it safe to say that you will never get a #1 ranking as a hub?
Is it safe to say that you will never get a #1 ranking as a hub?
Nope... I wouldn't make that bet. This is all relative to the topic in question?
DMOZ is a hub... hubs can quickly become authorities. (A lot of work though).
It all fits with decent sourcing/quoting of your information.
How many scientific publications are around claiming a lot, using a lot of data and showing no sources?
from: [cse.lehigh.edu...]
slide 11
or:
[research.compaq.com...]
Remove non-relevant documents by
Setting a relevance threshold
- Median Weight
- Start Set Median Weight
- Fraction of Maximum Weight
Setting a document degree threshold
- 4 x (In Degree) + (Out Degree)
Iteratively removing non-relevant highly-ranked pages
I'm not sure what one could make out of that 4 x (In Degree) + (Out Degree)..
#1 ranking as a hub?
Depends on the search query.
A general term, WIDGETS, returns general results, usually a Canadian Government web site, or a Milwaukee Brewery. :)
It's when you add the second and third search term that the REAL results, results with relevancy, come out of the woodwork and you find yourself in SEOland. Anything general is usually PPCland.
Paynt's the link expert around here, but my humble opinion about this is that if you are a RESOURCE about something, then people will want to link to you. Especially if you're not a competitor.
That's kind of a hub.
So maybe what I'm trying to say is Yes... and no. And maybe.
:) Y
