Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.221.9.209

Message Too Old, No Replies

Are links from "stingy linkers" more valuable?

     
6:47 pm on Jun 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


I was watching a video lecture from a Microsoft engineer about improving the SALSA algorithm for link structure analysis - and I noticed a very casual comment that "links from authors who are very stingy outlinkers are more informative." He said it as if everyone in his audience would already know this.

It was a "duh" moment for me. Such links could be more valuable not just because the PR vote is not split as much (after all, there could be many internal links on the page) but more valuable simply because this particular author rarely links out.

First, I have a subjective impression that this may already be a factor in Google - but I'm not clear how I could test for it without a massive data set and lots of analysis resources. And second, it seems to me that one of the changes in PR calculation over the years is probably a segmentation and different treatment for internal links (especially nav links) and external links.

I do know that the next time I get a link from a stingy linker, I'm going to pay very close attention.

What do you think? Has anyone seen evidence that a link from stingy linker will be a bigger help?

7:02 pm on June 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 25, 2003
posts:2527
votes: 0


segmentation and different treatment for internal links (especially nav links) and external links.

Surely that was all that was being referred to?

The line between an information page that links to a few good resources vs. a reciprocal links page is not that fine ... it's a canyon. I had assumed that search engines worked this out some time ago.

How many outgoing links a site adds per month/update could maybe be a "stingy" indicator if you're looking for one?

8:24 pm on June 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Moderator This Forum from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator robert_charlton is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 11, 2000
posts:11314
votes: 165


I've always sought links that would put me in good company, and I've assumed (and observed) that links from stingy linkers help.

That said, "stingy linking" doesn't automatically suggest discriminate or peceptive linking. It might simply be lazy or conservative linking limited to the usual suspects in a niche.

Whether the engines can distinguish between various kinds of stinginess may in fact not matter, but if you're building up a high quality site, it may be easier to get links from perceptive linkers than to get links from the lazy or conservative linkers.

Also... I think that, for Google, it helps to be a perceptive linker as well.

9:25 pm on June 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ken_b is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 5, 2001
posts:5668
votes: 60


"stingy linking" doesn't automatically suggest discriminate or peceptive linking. It might simply be lazy or conservative linking limited to the usual suspects in a niche.

Or they might just be hoarding PR.

"links from authors who are very stingy outlinkers are more informative."

Do they really think PR hoarding is a sign of quality?

If not, how do they tell the difference between webmasters who are hoarding PR and those who are just very choosy about the quality of the sites they link to?

11:22 am on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

5+ Year Member

joined:Apr 29, 2008
posts:82
votes: 0


>>I've always sought links that would put me in good company

>>If not, how do they tell the difference between webmasters who are hoarding PR and those who are just very choosy about the quality of the sites they link to?

by who else they link to would make sense?

links from quality outlinkers rather than stingy might be the way to think of it.

like for example.. ..here. (can I have a link please? :)

5:28 pm on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 30, 2005
posts:430
votes: 0


less outlinks is a sign that that they are less likely to be participating in link exchanges or selling links. It shows they care more about who they link out to. The more relevant the outlinks the higher the value to all parties involved.
5:50 pm on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:July 3, 2008
posts:1553
votes: 0


Does the recipient of an inbound link from a "stingy linker" benefit because the linker is stingy, or because of the quality of the stingy linker's recipients?

If John Doe links to 20 thin affiliate sites from a page and Jane Buck links to Wikipedia, Nytimes.com, and the Internet Public Library from her page, which sends a more positive message to the search engine: The numbers of links on John and Jane's pages, or the "TrustRank" of the outbound links' targets?

8:12 pm on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 16, 2004
posts:91
votes: 0


This makes a lot of sense to me.

If people who doesn't link to every and choose their links very carefully link to you, then you have carefully chosen.

It doesn't matter if they do it keep PR on their site, they're people who doesn't link too much.

If a good percentage of their links go to good websites, and they don't link too much, and they link to you, then, on aggregate data, you look like a very carefully chosen link.

9:04 pm on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 3, 2004
posts:508
votes: 0


nice question raised by signor_john. i would be happy to get view of members on that.
10:14 pm on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


I like the idea, too. Quality of external linking could be a sitewide factor - possibly folded into the trust equation. Some patents have talked about monitoring the quality of advertising a site runs, so why not the free links, too!

This would also play into Matt Cutts' enigmatic message that Google's algo does include factors that reward external linking.

However, would that automatically mean that being on the receiving end of a link from such a site is worth more to the target site? Something about neightborhoods on the webgraph comes to mind.

10:58 pm on June 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from CA 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 18, 2005
posts:1692
votes: 3


Maybe there's a scale for linkers and the sweet spot would be in the middle:

No links -> link hoarder
A few low quality links -> SEO
A few high quality links -> trusted, careful linker
Many quality links -> trusted, carefree linker
Many low quality links -> untrusted linker
Excessive low quality links -> spammer

4:48 am on June 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Dec 29, 2003
posts:5428
votes: 0


Makes sense: If I review cameras and link to 2 versus 5 it probably means that those 2 brands are the top ones.
12:46 pm on June 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 16, 2003
posts:992
votes: 0


How do you define stingy? Are we talking about stingy on a links-per-page level, or per site, or divided by the total amount of non-linked content?

Imagine your website has just one 500-word article, and 10 external links. That may seem generous. Now picture the same website with 50 similar articles, but the same number of external links. That may seem much stingier. So this raises the question, does an increase in content turn you into a stingy linker, or even a hoarder?

Now consider this: a carefully-edited directory will look much the same as one that lists all comers, in terms of the numbers of links per page (if both are paginated the same way) and the ratio of anchor text to total text. So the engines will have to look at a bunch of other factors to determine which links are higher quality, or indeed which directory belongs to the stingy linker.

So I think it's possible these links are more valuable, but until we really know what is meant by the term it's tough to test.

3:44 pm on June 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


More informative, no. Easier to analyze, yes.

Obviously Microsoft and Google disagree on which of those is more important.

5:04 pm on June 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:July 3, 2008
posts:1553
votes: 0


How do you define stingy? Are we talking about stingy on a links-per-page level, or per site, or divided by the total amount of non-linked content?

It isn't how we define "stingy"; it's how Google does (if it does). But I think any kind of "link quality score" that took the number of links into account would need to be site-based, not page-based, for a couple of reasons:

1) Indiscriminate linkers often use links pages (rather than linking in context);

2) Writers of articles, academic papers, etc. often place citations and links to other resources on the final page instead of embedding them in the body text.

1:59 am on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member whitey is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 28, 2005
posts:3053
votes: 16


Tedster

This would also play into Matt Cutts' enigmatic message that Google's algo does include factors that reward external linking.

I've often wondered about the effectiveness of this. Where did you see or hear this from MC ?

2:57 am on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 31, 2004
posts:299
votes: 0


If the content is really good I'd expect it to usually be linked to and not linked from very much (variations apply too). All roads lead to Rome style. If you think about some of the patents from a few years back it makes sense that a 'signal of quality' could in fact be a lack of links out as it *is* the 'source'.
3:12 am on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ken_b is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Oct 5, 2001
posts:5668
votes: 60


So how would this concept affect "hub" sites that link out generously?
3:37 am on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


I've often wondered about the effectiveness of this. Where did you see or hear this from MC ?

It's in his June 15 blog post about PR Sculpting.

Q: Okay, but doesn’t this encourage me to link out less? Should I turn off comments on my blog?

A: I wouldn’t recommend closing comments in an attempt to “hoard” your PageRank. In the same way that Google trusts sites less when they link to spammy sites or bad neighborhoods, parts of our system encourage links to good sites.

[mattcutts.com...]

Many webmasters here have noticed the effect over past years - going back to Brett's 26 Steps post in 2002 [webmasterworld.com]

10:47 am on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 15, 2005
posts:744
votes: 0


I would believe it is more dependent on the quality of the page that is linking to me..

A wikipedia-type site with hundred links would still churn out more value to each of the hundred linked pages than a stingy linker whose website is more of an MFA

11:55 am on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member whitey is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 28, 2005
posts:3053
votes: 16


Interesting ...

Brett's post per above : " From every page, link to one or two high ranking sites under that particular keyword. Use your keyword in the link text (this is ultra important for the future). As you can see from the WebmasterWorld google forum topics, Google highly values links. Inbound links are what people say who you are, and outbound links are what you say you are. Google will clearly use both in a the algo some where. "

So what were the effects that Webmaster's have been reporting ?

7:04 pm on June 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


As someone who has followed this practice (not on every page, but when ithe context seems to make sense) I can report very stable and strong rankings.

You may notice that many strong sites often receive backlinks from spammy neighborhoods. Why would a spammer do that? They are trying to exploit this factor in the Google system.

10:55 pm on June 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member whitey is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Jan 28, 2005
posts:3053
votes: 16


How does the stability and rankings compare with sites with IBL's ?

[ I think I'm seeing some sites that are doing well only with this - but just wanted to compare notes ]

11:13 pm on June 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tedster is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 26, 2000
posts:37301
votes: 0


You need IBL's too, I'd say. Can't tell for sure because all the sites I work with have them.
12:53 pm on July 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from ZA 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 15, 2002
posts:1720
votes: 1


I have one site where over 95% of my pages links out to relevant on topic pages, some of which people would class as direct competitors - I personally find that it has certainly helped to reinforce the individual pages topics and rankings appear to be good.